Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.


October 31

October 31, 2011 (2011-10-31) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Greek Referendum Announcement

Article: Greek economy referendum, 2012 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Greek Government announces that there will be a referendum in 2012 regarding whether Greece should remain in the Euro. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, The Guardian, New York Times, Al Jazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: It is a major decision which has shaken the global (and Greece's national) economy overnight, and could have grave consequences. Regardless of the result of the referendum itself, the consequences of the announcement included a fierce response from governments all around the world, and as Al Jazeera wrote on their article: "The Greek government faced possible collapse on Tuesday as ruling party lawmakers demanded Prime Minister George Papandreou resign for throwing the nation's euro membership into jeopardy with a shock call for a referendum." It is all over the news around the world. ¬ laonikoss (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support This is clearly an extremely notable event and the article is well-referenced. This has been a leading news story in media around the world. While some editors may feel that posting this item should await the outcome of the referendum, I point out that the ramifications of the announcement of the referendum have already been immediate and far-reaching. I was considering nominating this myself, but nominations of items related to the Eurozone seem to be swimming upstream around here lately. Deterence Talk 06:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now It's just Papandreou's political promises, until an exact date for the referendum is announced. Also, the blurb is mistaken in that the referendum is not about whether Greece will stay in the euro, but whether it will accept the eurozone bailout package, that was announced last week. Also, the referendum might still turn out unnecessary if eg. Greek government falls in this Friday's vote of confidence and/or the eurozone decides to dispel Greece. --hydrox (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong sypport per Deterence. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose its a campaign promise, like withdrawal from Iraq. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - This will be extremely significant news if it actually happens, or even if a date is set. For now, however, it's just an announcement of a plan by a crisis-plagued government which may not survive the week. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Post it when it happens, not when it is announced. --bender235 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For goodness sake, you guys would have waited until 6 months after the lines at the soup kitchens stretched around the corner before posting an ITN item about the Great Depression. This place is becoming more farcical by the week. Deterence Talk 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Associated Press is now reportng that the referendum has been canceled, only four days after it was proposed. I think the caution is well-warranted here. There's no point in rushing to the main page just to have the item pulled the day after. --hydrox (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Reposted] Palestine admitted to UNESCO

Articles: State of Palestine (talk · history · tag) and Member states of UNESCO (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UNESCO becomes the first UN agency to accord full membership to Palestine. (Post)
News source(s): Russia Today, The Telegraph
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: After the much covered Palestinian bid at the UN, this is the first time where the Palestinian state gets full membership at a UN agency. Given the significance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is echoing globally --Tachfin (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it won't be admitted as a member until signs the instruments of accession, so updating the article to say it's a member already will be inaccurate until it's done this. Nightw 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article has only 1 line of prose, suggest we add more now (reactions perhaps) or wait till its done.Lihaas (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Palestine 194#UNESCO, which gives much better context. There's currently a content dispute though so it's in a constant state of flux. Nightw 17:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the blurb's bold link to the above article, as it contributes much more than a list. As this is multiple paragraphs of new information, I'm also marking this nomination as updated and ready. Mamyles (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the relevant content keeps being removed by another user. Unfortunately, I won't get a chance to restore it until tomorrow. Nightw 19:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Also note that the USA no longer contributes to the UNESCO, which is notable as they provide 22% of the overall UNESCO budget. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine being admitted or the U.S. spitting the dummy -- what's the bigger story? Nightw 18:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is making big waves, with USA also withdrawing its funding to UNESCO. Not sure which one is bigger news.. maybe have them both in the blurb? "UNESCO accepts Palestine as its member, bringing end to funding from the USA." ? Note that this is not a political reaction from the present US administration to the news, but the decision is based on a bill from 1990s that forbids USA from funding any United Nations organizations that accept Palestine as their member. --hydrox (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless your looking at some super-up-to-date news that I haven't seen, the US hasn't actually made that decision yet and there is no urgency for it to do so (a question for their lawyers and diplomats to chew over, even if the end result is predictable).--FormerIP (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15527534 "The United States is cancelling funding for the UN cultural body Unesco after it voted to grant full membership to the Palestinians. [...] A US state department spokeswoman said a payment of some $60m (£37m) due next month would not be made. Membership dues paid by the US account for about a fifth of the organisation's annual budget. [...] A US law passed in the 1990s bars giving funding to any UN body that admits the Palestinians as full members before an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is reached. [...] while continued US funding was impossible, the administration wanted to remain an active member of Unesco. " --hydrox (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually a new decision, it's the result of a law passed a while ago which said that any UN agency which recognizes Palestine would not receive funding from the U.S. I don't know how that'll work out in practice though. JimSukwutput 05:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World population reaches 7 billion

Article: World population (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Nations marks a world population milestone of 7 billion people. (Post)
News source(s): UN page, Monday's child: 7 billion milestone, UN marks 7 billion population milestone today, plus 200+ others.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is a significant milestone, and is making headlines globally. --SMasters (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Day of Seven Billion is currently scheduled to appear on DYK during the 12:00 31 October 2011 (UTC) update. --Allen3 talk 01:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I was thinking of nominating this myself but, when you look into it, there are various conflicting official estimates of the world population. We will be celebrating the same milestone next April, apparently. --FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are many different organizations giving estimates. But this is the UN. If you wait till April, I doubt you will get the 200+ news sources around the world headlining this story now. By then, this will be old news. – SMasters (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

October 30, 2011 (2011-10-30) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Politics and elections

[Posted] Qantas dispute "terminated"

Article: Qantas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Qantas is ordered to resume flights as an ongoing dispute is terminated. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, The Globe and Mail, BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Breaking news at the moment — Joseph Fox 15:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please update. Present tense blurb usage is again making it look like the strike is still in effect. I dont care who says what about "historic present", ITN is on the web and if we insist on using present tense then we need to try and keep the blurb present too. -- Ashish-g55 22:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alaa Abd El-Fatah arrested

Articles: Alaa Abd El-Fatah (talk · history · tag) and Human rights in Egypt under the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Egyptian blogger Alaa Abd El-Fatah was arrested (Post)
News source(s): Global Voices, Reuters, Bikya Masr, Al-Ahram, Al-Ahram2, The Guardian, Al-Arabiya, The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post
Credits:

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Breaking News: Alaa is one the main activists behind 2011 Egyptian revolution -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syria on the brink of civil war

Article: 2011 Syrian uprising (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): Al-Jazeera, BBC, Telegraph
  • Nom. Not so sure about the blurb, tho. Since Friday, violence is escalating in Syria, more than 50 people died (in Homs and Hama, among other cities; most in half a year of protests). Opposition begins fighting back by force of arms, calls for Western intervention. Assad threatens to set the "whole region on fire". This is definitely a turning point in this uprising. --bender235 (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object "on the brink" is not "news" doktorb wordsdeeds 10:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious wait till something actually triggers the commencement civil war. So far it's just speculative media report from tension of both(?) parties but as we know tensions don't result in wars for at least weeks or even months. YuMaNuMa (talk)
  • Comment Just how long is Wikipedia going to pretend nothing is happening in Syria? Deterence Talk 21:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    this is the 2nd time in about as many days as youre trying to push a pov with ITN. ITN doesnt DRAW ATTENTION to what editors deem necessary. WP is not a news service as youre insinuation that it should IGNORE or SANCTION. twice youve clearly shown the intent you seek from WP. Syria "on the brink" of civil war th is conjecture, Yemen is closer and sourced as saying "on the brink of..."Lihaas (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Blah blah blah. Ignored. Deterence Talk 12:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This should have been posted during the commencement of the uprising in March but was blanketed by the Japanese earthquake and the Fukushima nuclear disaster. YuMaNuMa (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about a sticky? --Tone 22:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll agree with a sticky mentioning Syria, it's probably the biggest news story so far. Secret account 04:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until something actually happens. So far, in an attempt to trigger a "revolution", news agencies have been pushing this "Syria is on the brink of something big happening" with daily ~30 deaths stories while relying solely on democracy activists bloggers reports (One of them turned out to be living on the other side of the planet). Wait until we have confirmed news and the propaganda game ends. Tachfin (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any blurb along the lines of "Syria on brink of civil war" which would be pure speculation. I should point out that of the three sources cited only one even uses the term "civil war" and that one is dated almost a month ago. Hut 8.5 10:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, speculative. Syria should be frequently posted as long as present conflict persists, but the blurb must have a concrete event. --Soman (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed blurb as speculative. Also, while the uprising in Syria is, without a doubt, major news (just not of the kind that's always easy to reflect in an encyclopedia), I don't think a sticky is justified. There are other ongoing conflicts that have persisted for much longer and are more deadly, and ITN simply does not have enough room to accomodate them all. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

October 29, 2011 (2011-10-29) (Saturday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business

Disasters

[Posted] 2011 World Series

Article: 2011 World Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the St. Louis Cardinals defeat the Texas Rangers to win the 2011 World Series. (Post)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 --61.245.25.32 (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment NOT READY -- there is not even ONE line of prose update about the victory -- agame 7 section only mentiosn BEFORE the game, that is not what its nom'd for here.Lihaas (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Super ready. Dunno what article Lihaas was reading, tbh –HTD 06:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are now three referenced paragraphs. Definitely ready.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Qantas grounds entire fleet

Article: Qantas#Fundamental structural change (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Qantas, the national airline of Australia, grounds its entire fleet in response to continued union action. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/qantas-strikes-to-hit-10000-passengers-today/story-fn7x8me2-1226180030416
Credits:

Nominator's comments: National airline; unprecedented. --124.169.191.4 (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Quite significant, thousands of travelers will be stranded in international locations and according to The Daily Telegraph, 37000 employees will be without pay until this situation is resolve. As far as we know, this is an indefinite ceasing of operation for Australia's largest airline. YuMaNuMa (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Quite unusual event (Has anything like this ever happened?). International notice, BBC Nb. It has been reported that Qantas said they will get everyone to their destinations. Hopefully therefore not thousands stranded (fingers crossed!) Whether this includes those who have not yet taken off is another thing. - 220.101.30 talk\edits (aka 220.101) 07:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Obvious immediate impact. But the blurb needs to change to something like "Qantas, the national airline of Australia, grounds its entire fleet in response to union action." The current blurb implies that the unions directly caused the grounding. While management may want the public to think that, it's a management decision to ground the fleet. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. IgnorantArmies 08:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've improved it a bit, but it might be a good idea to expand it a bit more before we link to it in the blurb. IgnorantArmies 13:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Quantas-biased Main page today... --Tone 18:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Oppose This is just a routine lock-out in the on-going conflict between 3 strong unions who are fighting to protect the employment, safety and conditions of their members and the management of Qantas who are fighting to improve their commercial efficiency in an increasingly competitive airline industry. Such tit-for-tat industrial action has been taken by both sides to the dispute (albeit on a lesser scale) for a few years now. For some reason, media attention (and the Wikipedia community) is disproportionately drawn to events relating to airplanes. Deterence Talk 21:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not on the ground in Oz but it sure doesn't look that insignificant to me. It's caused a great deal of traffic disruption and continues to be a top headline on the BBC. 10s of thousands of passengers are stranded; cost is 250m per day.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 28

October 28, 2011 (2011-10-28) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters
  • A 6.9 magnitude earthquake strikes 51 kilometres south-west of the city of Ica in Peru at a depth of 35 km. No reports of casualties are issued. News.com.au
International relations
Law and crime
Movies
Politics and elections
Science
Sport

Skate Canada International

Articles: Elizaveta Tuktamysheva (talk · history · tag) and Patrick Chan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Elizaveta Tuktamysheva and Patrick Chan win gold medal at the 2011 Skate Canada International. (Post)
Credits:

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: A major figure skating competition --♫GoP♫TCN 12:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose One of 6 qualification events for a grand final, which is itself of questionable status compared to the Four Continents championship, and surely of lower status than the world championship. Perhaps "a major competition", but a long way short from "the major championship" of the season. Kevin McE (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian protests

Article: 2011 Syrian uprising (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Syrian security forces kill 40 civilians across the country following protesting against the government's rejection of a cease-fire. (Post)
News source(s): NYT Haaretz
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: I know Arab Spring-related events have been covered heavily on the main page, but as far as I know this is the largest act of killing in a single day since protests began in March. Thoughts? WikifanBe nice 02:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is not ITN/R. The Syrian uprising has been going on every day for many months so it is quite difficult to decide which events are sufficiently notable for ITN . But, a day of such heavy civilian blood-shed, that signifies the government's total rejection of even a hint of compromise, is worth bringing to the attention of Wikipedia's readers. Further more, the article is excellent and extremely well-referenced. Deterence Talk 02:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG oppose per Deterence's comments. 1. been going on every day for seven months, 2. 40 deaths in the ME would barely make it news on ITN for attacks unless the target was notable, 3. ITN i s not to POV-push which is what "worth bringing to the attention of Wikipedia's readers" is all about and wreaks off. doesnt get more of an admission of pov-pushin g that that.Lihaas (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NO, ITN is about what IN THE NEWS thats why we cite what is on top of many media outlets and making news all over.Lihaas (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Irish presidential election

Articles: Irish presidential election, 2011 (talk · history · tag) and Michael D. Higgins (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Michael D. Higgins is elected president of Ireland (Post)
News source(s): http://www.rte.ie/news/vote2011/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15488067
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 --Kevin McE (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article is great, ITNR, just wait for final result confirmed and also more prose will no doubt follow. this is a sure thing.Lihaas (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: why has this been placed below the baseball and the ballet? If posting is going to be delayed until completion of counting and official announcement, rather than concession of opponents and inevitability of result, then that is the timing that determines order on ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've bumped it up to number 2, alongside the Qantas story as October 29. I can't seem to locally upload the picture though as it's CC BY 2.0, not CC BY 3.0. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Kevin McE (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pic posted. Not sure what's wrong with "CC BY 2.0", though. --PFHLai (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict in Joanna Yeates case

Article: Murder of Joanna Yeates (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dutch engineer Vincent Tabak is convicted of the murder of British landscape artist Joanna Yeates and sentenced to life imprisonment. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Sky News, Guardian, Daily Mail, Telegraph

 --BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Despite the totally disproportionate attention given by the press, this is in no way no more notable than the resolution of any other murder case, of which there are about 500,000 per year. Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From were do you get that figure? Its like saying we shouldnt post the American presidential election results next year because there "are so many elections each year all over the world", quite hollow.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That figure is from List of countries by intentional homicide rate. Hut 8.5 20:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Simply not that important on a global scale - or on a European scale, or even on a UK or any other scale. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I suggest we develop some mechanism to speedy-reject trivial nominations like this, just as we have ITNR for obviously significant events. JimSukwutput 18:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is really no way or reason to blanket ban nomination topics. Some murder cases could very well be significant, such as if there were resulting international relations effects. More nominations is better than less, as we sometimes can't find anything for 30+ hours. Mamyles (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the only reason this murder got so much coverage is that the demographic characteristics of the victim made it good for selling newspapers. I can't think of any reason why an international audience might be interested. Unlike elections the vast majority of murders are not remotely suitable for ITN (roughly 700 people a year are murdered in the UK alone). Hut 8.5 20:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Once again, we witness how a murder is deemed more important simply because the victim is a beautiful young white girl. That pisses me off. Deterence Talk 20:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per above, but also because this seems to have not gotten coverage outside Britain anyway. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Bolshoi Theatre re-opened

Article: Bolshoi Theatre (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow re-opens after an extensive 6-year long renovation costing about £500 million ($700 million). (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Article updated

Nominator's comments: This must be one of the most costly theatre reconstructions in history, and that's a good chance to feature something theatre-related on ITN. GreyHood Talk 16:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred most of the content of the section to the section about renovation. Marking [Ready?]. Now the structure of the article must be alright. GreyHood Talk 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Succession

Article: Line of succession to the British throne#Proposed changes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Commonwealth Heads of Government agree to alter the rules governing the line of succession to the British throne, ending male primogeniture and allowing marriage to Roman Catholics. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Important as it changes a 300 years old law and determines the future heads of state of the 16 Commonwealth realms. --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, can we please not refer to it as the "British throne". I'd normally say wait until it's done, but that could be problematic. How many separate acts are we talking? I know that most countries just defer to British legislation on this, but Canada and Australia have their own lines to legally alter (are there any more?). So since that's at least three legislative changes that are surely not going to happen simultaneously it might be better to just post the announcement. Nightw 10:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The wording needs to be correct. The CHOGM meeting cannot and did not announce that the laws have been changed, only that there was unanimous agreement that they will be changed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what it says. Nightw 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Alter the rules" is ambiguous. Many would interpret that as altering the laws, which CHOGM can't do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says "agree to alter the rules", which seems accurate. --FormerIP (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...agree that the rules be altered..." would be more accurate. Sorry to nitpick, but "rules" is ambiguous, and neither the meeting nor the heads of government themselves have the power to alter the laws - that is up to the legislature of each country. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (now) the announcement itself of the proposed rule changes is a big deal. Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support A change of head of state is ITNR material: I would contend that changes to the way heads of state are appointed is if anything more notable, particularly when as here it is 16 countries and the Commonwealth in question. As for the precise wording I feel we need to avoid the temptation to be overly pedantic - there is limited information we can put in one blurb and given that space constraint "British throne" is as good a term as any. I certainly wouldn't pander to that temptation at the expense of either the main headlines - the removal of both the sex and religious discrimination elements. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support changes 1000+ year tradition. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support interesting and important item. GreyHood Talk 16:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT there is a ONE sentence update here and another line that was unsourced, there is not way this is updated sufficiently for posting.Lihaas (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The wrong article is being flagged up here. The main article is Succession to the British throne - it is the principle of succession that is the newsworthy item here, not any incidental changes to the line of succession (which will not be affected immediately in any case). The problem is that the main article - Succession to the British throne - is substantially under-referenced, though the newsworthy parts of it have been and are being updated, to a much greater extent than the article on the current line of succession. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the article is crap and porrly sourced, but the relevant section ive now merged. though it would wait till the law is passed as required, this is just a suggestion and we only pass/post such things when they are in practice as with biz mergesr and laws of notability. (DADT, etc)Lihaas (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, the update is in Succession to the British throne#Reform initiated in 2011. A couple of words more wouldn't harm. And, is there any chance to summarize the blurb, as it is, it is rather lenghty for ITN. --Tone 10:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could be shortened in all sorts of ways, down to "It is agreed that the rules governing the line of succession to the throne of sixteen Commonwealth realms be changed." But it's probably important that we say where the change was agreed, and what it means. I've added some quotes to the article - the serious commentary (if any) will probably emerge over coming months. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edits made to the articles overnight by User:Miesianiacal have now (some of which I have now reverted to allow for further discussion) made the previous suggestion by User:Philip Stevens, or my amended suggestion, unworkable. His/her changes are not technically incorrect, but they make made the reader's job of accessing the information much harder, because the information is was no longer centralised in one place (because of the insistence that we are not talking about the "British" throne but the thrones of a number of separate countries). There is, as yet, no substantial "debate" over changing the rules - what we have is an agreement that the rules be changed. I give up. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My opinion is based on four factors: 1) The blurb refers only to agreement to change the line of succession to the British throne when, in fact, more lines than just the British will have to be altered. Saying "line of succession to the British throne and that of the other Commonwealth realms" is still problematic since it both gives the UK an undeserved prominence and wrongly implies there is one throne for the UK and another for the 15 other Commonwealth realms. 2) The article Line of succession to the British throne is the wrong one to link to, not only for many of the aforementioned reasons, but also because the topic is better covered at the more neutral article Act of Settlement 1701#Amendment. 3) The amendments must first be passed by a number of parliaments and thus aren't guaranteed to be implemented. And 4) not all the Commonwealth heads of government had a say in this matter; in fact, most didn't. Only the prime ministers of the 16 Commonwealth realms did.
I would support if the blurb read something more like: "The prime ministers of the Commonwealth realms agree at the 2011 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to attempt reform of the rules of succession to the crown shared amongst the 16 countries, ending male primogeniture and allowing heirs to marry Roman Catholics." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the above. (1) While technically correct, it would be helpful to have the information in one place as clearly discussions in the countries are very closely linked. The view that the UK has an "undeserved prominence" ignores the fact that the other countries' systems derive historically directly from the British system. (2) Matter of opinion. The article on the Act of Settlement is not necessarily "more neutral" - they are all (or should be) neutral. (3) True - point I made earlier, though the decision in principle has now been taken. The wording that the heads of government will only "attempt" to change the legislation is disingenuous, as there is no evidence that there will be any substantial opposition. (4) True, though it is also correct to state that the decision was made at the CHOGM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the Commonwealth realms other than the UK derive their systems of governance from the UK is of no consequence to the fact that the UK's prominence amongst them ended in 1926; the UK-first attitude is more than eighty years out of date, and there's no reason Wikipedia should be promoting it. Along the same lines, Succession to the British throne is obviously focused on Britain; information on Canada's line of succession, for example, has no place in it, or, at least, is only tangential. And, lastly, I will reiterate that the proposed wording of the blurb implies these chages are all but done. They are not; there are still great legal hurdles to get over (in Canada alone it's yet to be established if the consent of all ten provincial legislatures is required). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative way of stating it would be to say that David Cameron, British PM, announced the changes. Which, like it or not, is a fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact Cameron made an announcement. But he did not announce any changes, since none have been made. He was also not alone in making an announcement about the subject. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Act of Settlement 1701#Amendment proposals, Cameron proposed the change at CHOGM and it was supported by the other heads of government. He made the initial announcement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it appears to have all been set in motion by his initiative. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what would be wrong with: "David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, proposes that the rules governing the line of succession to the sixteen Commonwealth realms be changed, to end male primogeniture and allow marriage to Roman Catholics." Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't immediately see anything wrong with that. I would only propose that it be tweaked slightly to read: "British Prime Minister David Cameron proposes that the rules governing the Commonwealth realms' lines of succession be changed to end male primogeniture and allow marriage to Roman Catholics." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be good to hear the views of other editors on Miesianical's proposed blurb, before the issue goes completely cold. I don't like the wording, but it's not much worse than many others I see here, and if there is agreement in principle that what was said at CHOGM was important enough to go in ITN, perhaps the wording could be tweaked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as we should wait until all 16 Commonwealth realms have passed their respective amendments to the succession. PS: As for the blurb? I'm not getting involved with those -British vs Commonwealth realms are equal arguments, again. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the issue is newsworthy now - by the time legislation is eventually implemented, any interest in it will probably have passed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've convinced me. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"British Prime Minister David Cameron proposes that the rules governing the Commonwealth realms' lines of royal succession be changed to end male primogeniture and allow marriage to Catholics."
Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

October 27, 2011 (2011-10-27) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

Sports

[Posted] Tunisian elections

Articles: Tunisian Constituent Assembly election, 2011 (talk · history · tag) and Renaissance Party (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ennahda wins a plurality in the first post-Arab Spring Constituent Assembly election in Tunisia. (Post)
News source(s): Washington PostAl-ArabiyaReuters
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Support posting once the results are officially announced, blurb should be modified accordingly --Tachfin (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constituent assembly results are NOT ITNR...it should be based on its own merits, but as the first Arab Spring election i would support when results are confoirmed. Also agree with toe about PLURALITY beig npov wordingLihaas (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Results are going to be announced today. I agree that the blurb should be amended maybe something like al-Nahda wins the most seats in... Tachfin (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be ITNR as per Reuters above "It will also appoint a new interim president and government to run the country until fresh elections late next year or early in 2013." --Alcea setosa (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is already nominated below. Suggest blurb to follow standards:
Although the article still needs updating. Nightw 11:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this nomination because the official results have just been announced. --FormerIP (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
marked ready and reworded blurb to consistently use "plurality" on these sort of things and added Arab Spring context WP:BoldlyLihaas (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After much delay, article is more or less ready. Re blurb, I don't think the average reader knows what a plurality is, also the context should link to the Tunisian revolution as there have been elections in Egypt which were the first post-Arab spring.

Suggested blurb: 'In the first elections after the Tunisian revolution, Enahda wins the most seats in the constituent assembly.'

or: 'Enahda wins the most constituent assembly seats in the first post-revolution elections in Tunisia.' --Tachfin (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

plurality is posted on every election that does not have an outright majority. this is not new nor is it the simple english WP.Lihaas (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that they have a plurality rather than a majority is essential information. -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is bvecause they didnt WIN nor tdo they have a majority. We have ALWYAS posted the word plurality and as per the one suggestion above which was MISLEADING it was followed through still.Lihaas (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost every election is won with a mere plurality instead of a majority (and often the winning candidate doesn't even have a plurality but wins because of the eccentricities of their electoral system). The average voter would be shocked to find out that most elections are "won" with the support of only around 20-25% of the adult population and rarely more than a third of those who vote. Deterence Talk 05:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Astiz sentenced

Article: Alfredo Astiz (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Alfredo Astiz is sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity during the Dirty War in Argentina between 1976-83 amongst the crimes are the abudction and murder of Dagmar Hagelin. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Article needs updating
I agree, I fixed it. Feel free to change it again anyone.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support big stntence for big "War" in a minority topic region. however remove blurb after argentina.
correct me if im wrong, but previously we wait for the sentence to be carried out (unless there is no appeal here then post immediately)Lihaas (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Sakharov Prize

Article: Sakharov Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Five representatives of the Arab Spring—Asmaa Mahfouz, Ahmed al-Senussi, Razan Zaitouneh, Ali Farzat, and Mohamed Bouazizi—share the 2011 Sakharov Prize. (Post)
News source(s): European Parliament
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nom. --bender235 (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's better than bold-linking five names. Although the prize article is pretty small as well. Nightw 17:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, bold-linking five names is sub-optimal. The main article has been completely updated so what's the issue? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's got three paragraphs of prose. I'd post it, personally, but others may find it inadequate. Nightw 18:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Don't snigger, it is a featured list as well, so it's not a bad thing to link to.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We only normally bold link one article, which would be the list article. All the same, the articles for the prizewinners should have no significant issues and not be stubs. --FormerIP (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the unsourced section in Asmaa Mahfouz. It seems that in January someone added a load of content derived from [2] in violation of copyright. However it seems that apart from that one unsourced section the rest of the copyvio content has been subsequently rewritten or removed. Hut 8.5 21:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated Sakharov Prize. --bender235 (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where the update? TWO lines of prose in the middle of the lead is NOT sufficient. Plenty of ITNR and overwhelming support articles are notposted with MORE of an update (bolivia for example below) (and kosovo and sebuia with a MASSIVE update)Lihaas (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that this is only a list, after all, right? And a featured one, just to mention it. You can't expect me to add like five paragraphs on this year's awardees, because this just isn't the right place. --bender235 (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What else would you write, Lihaas? Two lines are perfectly ok... so I mark it as ready--♫GoP♫TCN 11:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be inappropriate to add multiple paragraphs for each year, much less each contributor. This is an interactive encyclopedia that allows users to click on links for more detailed information, which we must take advantage of to avoid 500kb articles. Also, note that the article is rated "featured list" (FL), implying that it is meant to be just a list. Mamyles (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] Eurozone deal

Article: European sovereign debt crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Leaders of Eurozone countries agree a package of measures aimed at preventing the collapse of participating economies. (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The most important meeting in Europe since World War II, according to Angela Merkel. Maybe a neater blurb would be a good thing. --FormerIP (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)--[reply]

I've changed it, but I'm still not sure it feels right. --FormerIP (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - they announce that a package was agreed on, but there isn't even funding for it. We cannot say that an announcement, without any planned action, will avoid a collapse. Mamyles (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't avoid a collapse, does that mean it is not news? Will you be more convinced if I explain how it affects the US economy? --FormerIP (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An announcement, without any action, doesn't affect anything. At this point, the agreement could easily fall apart with no aciton taken. When it is funded and/or implemented, that will be meaningful. Mamyles (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is clearly notable. Business news media have been discussing the potential for this meeting every day for over a week and the markets were hanging on the edge of their seats awaiting the announcement. This announcement is one of the big milestones in the European debt crisis that economic historians will be writing about for decades. Deterence Talk 20:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Stocks soared yesterday at a rate unprecedented these couple of years across the globe and may continue to do so in the coming week in response to the deal. This is unarguably notable. YuMaNuMa (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose there are countless deals and bailots every few months that make "stocks soar" the DAX has had 3%+ days several times in the last 18 mths. and then what about the DOWNS that we dont post?Lihaas (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, its pretty obvious that the discussions weren't based around stock growth but an increase in stock shows the optimism of investors and business after an agreement was reached towards the Euro and Eurozone economy in general. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Really? The accidental death of a motorcycle racer gets speedy-posted while the culmination of a multinational, trillion-dollar financial agreement with huge repercussions around the world for billions of people (both positive and negative) gets ignored for days? This is an excellent indication of how superficial and sensationalist the ITN community has become. No wonder the rest of Wikipedia is trying to remove ITN from the main page for its utter irrelevance. JimSukwutput 18:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Jim Sukwutput's sentiments on this one. This topic is OBVIOUSLY extremely notable with massive economic implications for Europe and the world. It is appalling that this nomination is languishing in ITN purgatory while ITN is awash with bloody sports. Deterence Talk 21:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons Jim Sukwutput outlined above.yorkshiresky (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. DS (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we post this already support but this is not a minority topic. –HTD 19:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added [Ready]. The update is long, detailed and very well-sourced relative to our usual posts, and we have a strong consensus. In response to HTD, I believe this qualifies as minority under the Business and Economics criterion. JimSukwutput 04:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stale This event occurred on October 26. The oldest event (which, arguably, should be dropped due to the short length of the left side of the Main Page) is from October 27. It's too late for this to go on ITN. -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus resignation

Article: Olympus Corporation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Chairman of Olympus Corporation resigns amidst a major financial scandal causing US$1.2 billion in losses (Post)
News source(s): BusinessWeek, CFO Innovation Asia
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Minority topic. An event involving dramatic sacking of a new whistle-blowing CEO, opaque payments by a major Japanese corporation resulted in losses of $1.2 billion (nine zeros) and that wiped 50% off its market capitalisation, and the resignation of the President to assuage shareholders. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

October 26, 2011 (2011-10-26) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

[Posted] 787

Article: 787 Dreamliner (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Boeing 787 Dreamliner makes its inaugural flight. (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I seem to recall this having been deferred to the inaugural flight at the last nomination, and that happened earlier today. --Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 13:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, posting. --Tone 19:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should the blurb mention the 3 years worth of delays, since that's why the flight is notable. Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think mentioning that would be worthwhile, possibly by adding "...after three years of delays." Mamyles (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:All Nippon Airways Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner JA801A OKJ in flight ITN crop.jpg

October 25

October 25, 2011 (2011-10-25) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Science and technology

Coronal mass ejection

A recent coronal mass ejection has produced aurora activity, especially over North America to places as far south as Arkansas and Texas. Solar cycle 24.[6][7][8]. ~AH1 (discuss!) 01:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

October 24, 2011 (2011-10-24) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • The Tokyo Stock Exchange announces that it is asking for more disclosure from the embattled Japanese camera and imaging equipment manufacturer Olympus, which is facing a stock price collapse following the dismissal of its CEO, Michael Woodford. The TSE cannot at this time confirm violations of any listing requirements by Olympus. (Reuters)

Disasters

Law and crime
  • Julian Assange's whistleblowing website Wikileaks announces that it will suspend the publication of classified files and will instead focus on fundraising, after a "financial blockade" by numerous American companies reportedly destroys 95% of the site's revenue. (The Guardian)

Politics and elections

Science

October 23

October 23, 2011 (2011-10-23) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters

Politics and elections

Sports

UNSC election

Article: United Nations Security Council election, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Morocco, Guatemala, Togo, Pakistan and Azerbaijan are voted on to the United Nations' Security Council. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Lihaas (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Quoth WP:ITNR: "In previous years, the item has been added to ITN when the new members take their seats (1 Jan on even-numbered years) rather than when the results were announced". That way we get an actual story on 1 Jan, which is otherwise one of the slowest news days on the year. Modest Genius talk 23:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1 January whatever the year, odd or even. Kevin McE (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you might like to update ITNR to reflect that. Modest Genius talk 12:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We dot have to hfollow OTHERCRAPEXISTS...many times , ad esp. in eng speaking countries, the election ad govt was posted when taking office. BUT if others agree despite this notice then ill withdraw nom tooLihaas (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivian highway cancelled

Article: 2011 Bolivian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bolivia cancels a proposed highway project following two months of protests culminating in the capital La Paz. (Post)
News source(s): [9] [10]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Development project cancelled following protests ~AH1 (discuss!) 14:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons why the highway cancellation, and not just the protests themselves that involve 2,000 people, are significant and quite possibly ITN-worthy:
    • This is a policy-level executive decision made by a head of state based on protesters' demands, which is very rare even in Western democracies.
    • The proposed highway would be a smaller version of the Trans-Amazonian Highway, and somewhat similar to the Serengeti Highway; this is a major construction project in a nature preserve.
    • Both the highway and the protest story pass the three-continent rule, being featured in news outlets from South America, North America and Europe.
    • Some of the protests have called for the ouster of President Morales, partly for environmentally-destructive policies made by a government that was once often regarded as very pro-environment.
    • Most of the protesters are from indigenous groups, while Morales is Bolivia's first indigenous President, so this is likely to have political fallout as per news sources.
    • News item is an exemplefication of the struggle between economic expansion and environmental/indigenous rights.
    • Announcement of the cancellation came just as protesters reached the capital.
Please feel free to discuss further. ~AH1 (discuss!) 00:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm no tree-hugger, but, I can't quite believe this story has been blocked every time it has been nominated. It has resulted in worldwide coverage, (even here in New Zealand - and our news is total shit), it has resulted in the resignations of numerous government Ministers, it has pitted "new world" developers against indigenous peoples' living off their historic land, it has resulted in massive political unrest, it is one of the key battlegrounds in environmental politics, and the judicial ruling that the development was unlawful was an astonishing development in a country where public servants are generally bought-and-paid-for. Now we have the Bolivian President doing a u-turn. Deterence Talk 00:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per explanation by nominator of why it is significant. HurricaneFan25 00:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Let us not let our personal political opinions influence our judgment. JimSukwutput 02:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this affects such a small amount of people it's really not too important. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
50,000 indigenous groups, who knows how many individuals... The protests caused several deaths, hundreds of detainments, resignation of three cabinet ministers, and the cancellation of a US$ 480-million project due to popular pressure. No wonder it's making headlines, why should we be any different? How many people does the death of a motorcar racer affect? Nightw 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to posting the motorcar accident as well and I must say I'm quite surprised that that nomination has somehow received more support than this. But it doesn't change my opinion about this. I see a lot of votes based on - to put it gently - personal political views. JimSukwutput 16:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking for this supporter, my friends would be stunned to see how I voted on this issue (I'm so politically incorrect that I literally have the t-shirt). And I personally don't give a rat's fart about the death of a motor-cylist, (which I also supported). But, I set aside my personal preferences and politics to vote for each issue based on ITN notability. Deterence Talk 06:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong support its more than the cancellation, the protests that LED to it are just as , if not more, significa,t adn previously had LOADS of support but ot posted.Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Magnitude 7.2 earthquake in Turkey

Article: 2011 Van earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A magnitude 7.2 earthquake strikes the Eastern Turkish city of Van, resulting in numerous deaths and injuries. (Post)
News source(s): [11] [12]
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article in development, strong earthquake hits major city. ~AH1 (discuss!) 14:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Only fifteen earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or higher have hit Turkey in the past 100 years, and this one hit a major eastern city. Estimates of casualties are not available at this time, but range from 500 (Turkish Observatory) to 1,000 (AFP et al.) to 10,000+ (USGS PAGER). ~AH1 (discuss!) 14:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This earthquake has potentially more impact than the 2011 Sikkim earthquake (which we posted and had 111 fatalities), so please avoid oppose !votes while the article is in development. ~AH1 (discuss!) 14:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but wait Possibly thousands of deaths, given the shallowness and strength. Also, I'd like to note that the intensity on the MMI was X (the highest) according to PAGER, so I have no doubt that it will cause a few hundred deaths. HurricaneFan25 14:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Four hours ago, the casualty toll was 45 in Erciş alone. That is already notable in itself. ~AH1 (discuss!) 15:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ROSAT crash

Article: ROSAT (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ German X-ray telescope ROSAT crashes through Earth's atmosphere after disintegrating days prior. (Post)
News source(s): [13]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Limited information available. ~AH1 (discuss!) 14:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for some confirmation of where, when, and if any debris reached the ground. Modest Genius talk 16:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since it came down over the ocean and even if anything did survive to the surface, we will almost certainly never know. Modest Genius talk 12:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes satellites re-enter quite ofter, but it would be very unusual if bits of it impacted the surface. Modest Genius talk 19:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posting] 2011 Thailand floods

Article: 2011 Thailand floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Floods in central Thailand reach Bangkok, affecting over 2 million people. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Surprised the pretty well-referenced 2011 Thailand floods has never been at ITN. Ever. –HTD 12:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC) HTD 12:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per "Surprised the pretty well-referenced 2011 Thailand floods has never been at ITN. Ever." -- It was nominated and turned down for ITN two weeks ago -- yet for some reason, the reaction here and now was very, very different to that of the previous nomination. Check the archives. You do not have to go back very far. - Tenebris 18:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.251 (talk)

It's not just Thailand that's being affected, of course. I can say first-hand that the situation in Cambodia is pretty grim. Thailand is a lot better equipped to deal with this than its poorer neighbours, so I'm annoyed that we don't have a better 2011 Southeast Asian floods article. Nightw 13:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if this has not previously appeared in ITN. With over 300 deaths, and a third of Thailand under water, this is obviously a notable event. I had been under the impression that this event had appeared in ITN very recently. Deterence Talk 12:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support notable flood, entire occurrence had significant coverage across major television networks here in Australia.YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's a shame this wasn't nominated earlier, as it's definitely something we should put on the main page. But, there's no update after 10/13 given in the article, so I'm not sure this isn't stale. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We did post this earlier in the year, but only for a few hours before it was retracted. The Thai floods are the most significant event within the larger 2011 Southeast Asian floods, and some water is about to reach the outskirts of Bangkok (I'll support when that happens). Any significant developments? ~AH1 (discuss!) 14:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll have to say the article has gone rather stale. For the past ten days Bangkok has been bracing for floods and doing little else. Several suburbs and even more industrial estates have been submerged, as canals are overflowing east and west. Flyovers and expressways are choked with parked cars, the main highway out of Bangkok is under water, and people have been emptying store shelves in panic buying. Global production of hard disk drives has also been hit hard as a result of damage to factories. Criticism of the government's Flood Relief Operations Centre is growing stronger every day, and the general mood right now is that flooding will soon hit downtown Bangkok, despite the government's assurances otherwise. I haven't had time to do a proper update, and given the amount of daily events it's quite hard to judge which developments are the major ones which should be included in the article. I'll say if and when flooding does hit central Bangkok, this will make international headlines and we can easily base an update for ITN on that. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's already reached suburban Bangkok, can we not simply base a blurb on that. For me, that would justify why we fail to mention other countries. Nightw 23:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Argentina posted] Election in Tunisia, Bulgaria, Argentina, and Switzerland

The results will be announced later, the articles already exist (links in P:CE). --Tone 11:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the spirit of diversity if we find ourselves facing an avalanche of election results all at once we're going to have to pick and choose. Our choices will obviously be decided by the readiness of the articles, but we should also look for significance. I don't think the Bulgarian one is going to have much of an impact, and the article is nowhere near ready. In terms of volume, the Swiss article is about the same. The articles for Argentina and Tunisia look the best at the moment. Nightw 13:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can also consider the speed of the counting process. Not all of the results will be released at the same time. Is it a safe bet the Tunisian results wouldn't come out until later this week? –HTD 13:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If our motivation is to provide links to timely articles, then would a combined blurb, rather than fulfilling some perceived need to provide an announcements service on the Main Page, not suffice? Kevin McE (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best to just post them as/when the articles get up to scratch. Combining those disparate locations together would be rather odd. Modest Genius talk 16:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgarian one produced no result, it's going to a run-off round, so we can scratch that one. Swiss results starting to come through now, but the article is still way behind posting standards. Nightw 02:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the results are out now except for the Tunisian ones, which are out tomorrow according to the article. Great updating by dab to the Swiss article. Apparently we're still waiting on one seat to be confirmed, then we're probably ready for posting that one. Tunisian results are out tomorrow (local time) according to the article. Argentina article needs an update. Nightw 11:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina ready for posting:

Note that there were simultaneous legislative elections in Argentina, the results of which have not yet been announced (should probably be a blurb update when they do). Modest Genius talk 13:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. --Tone 13:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Marco Simoncelli

Article: Marco Simoncelli (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Italian motorcycle road racer Marco Simoncelli dies after an accident at the 2011 Malaysian motorcycle Grand Prix. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Another tragic race accident, a week after Dan Wheldon. --Tone 11:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although I expect a fair amount of opposition thanks to the accident with Wheldon not too long ago. — Joseph Fox 11:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Deterence. Though I also notice that this is the third death during a MotoGP race since 2003. Modest Genius talk 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's going overboard? HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to be supporting only because he died young. Reading through his article, he was not one of the top people in his game unlike Wheldon, who was a reigning champ at the time of his death. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you talking about? Nobody has mentioned his age. Yours is effectively an oppose with no reason, echoed by two other Opposes echoing you further down this thread. All fairly pointless contributions. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That might make sense if Wizardman had actually said anything meaningful. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copying from the guidance above: "Please do not add simple "support" or "oppose" votes. Explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached." — NKRI1945 (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copying from the guidance above: "Please do not add simple "support" or "oppose" votes. Explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached." — NKRI1945 (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support he was at one point a World Champ in the 250cc, which seems important enough to me. note that I'm not a racing fan, so if someone can prove that the 250cc isn't a significant championship, I could reconsider. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The subject is notable because he is a former world champion in the intermediate class and now an official Honda-supported rider despite only in a privateer (non-factory) team. The incident is notable because only the third casualty in the sport since 2003 and only the second in the premier class since 2003. — NKRI1945 (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Like the death of Wouter Weylandt, the significance is of a participant at the top level dying in the course of a top level event. This is very different from the issue of a sportsman who dies in other circumstances, albeit during his career, who would indeed need to be established at the absolute elite; thus we posted Robert Enke but not Xavier Tondó. Kevin McE (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. More worldwide significance than Wheldon's death. Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support We posted Wheldon, so why not this? Look, he was 1st and 3rd in 2008 and 2009, 6th this year; he was just 21 and 22. How can you say he was not one of the top sportspeople in motorcycly road racing and being so young? However, I oppose until someone with good english skills tries to improve the lead--♫GoP♫TCN 11:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted -- tariqabjotu 01:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] New Zealand wins the Rugby World Cup final

Article: 2011 Rugby World Cup Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Rugby World Cup concludes with New Zealand defeating France 8–7. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: The New Zealand All Blacks defeat France to win the rugby world cup. Article needs some updating, but the editors are probably getting royally drunk as I write this. Deterence Talk 09:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Harrias has expanded the article to include a substantial amount of excellent content. Your demand for some superfluous references, for the sake of adding references, is ... superfluous. Deterence Talk 11:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not superflouos, it's the criteria. Though it appears to be met now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

October 22, 2011 (2011-10-22) (Saturday)
International relations

Disasters

Politics and elections

[Posted] Saudi Crown Prince Sultan al Saud has died

Article: Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Saudi Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud dies in his 80s. (Post)
News source(s): The Associated Press Aljazeera.net Los Angeles Times CNN
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A State Department official confirmed to CNN that Saudi Crown Prince Sultan al Saud has died. The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support As the nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Any immediate member of a monarchy family that died would be considerably significant. YuMaNuMa (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose to this posting: A minister in the govt, but not head of state: unelected and not likely to have featured large in future governmental development. Strong oppose to YuMaNuMa's apparent proposal of automatic ITN coverage of the likes of people like this. Kevin McE (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations you have found one of the most extreme examples of a monarch family. I suppose I was a bit vague in my post but my intentions were pretty clear. Of course a monarch family from such a small country would be questionable in its inclusion.YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found two actually. The word any is clear, now it is clear that you did not mean that word, which is fine. Kevin McE (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was Crown prince of Saudi Arabia where nobody is elected. The death of a crown prince of a strong monarchy of one of the major countries in this world (largest oil producer) where the current king is old and expected to die any moment is a major event; more notable than -e.g.- the death of a race car driver currently featured Tachfin (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added blurb: "Saudi Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud dies in his 80s." I say in his 80s bacause the articles seem to imply that his birth year is in question. According to his wikipedia page he was 83. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
News articles seem to be unclear on it also. Could just not mention his age and say "...in New York" instead. Nightw 06:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would also go with the suggestion of leaving out the age and going with New York as well. --SMasters (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major event, he was virtually de facto King when the current one was away due to illness Tachfin (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Thue | talk 10:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but strongly oppose the wording 'in his 80s'. Replace it with 'in New York' or with the cause of death if known.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or at least spell out eighties. The current way just looks amateurish. --PlasmaTwa2 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After posting support - The death of an heir apparent in a country with an absolute monarchy is pretty much significant however you look at it. Swarm X 20:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud is the new crown prince
Article: Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): AlArabiya Breaking News
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud was supposed to be it but It seems now that Salman is the new crown prince The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

October 21, 2011 (2011-10-21) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Iraq War ends

Article: Iraq War (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ United States President Barack Obama announces that all U.S. troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2011 (Post)
News source(s): ABC News Sun Times
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This was one of Obama's main campaign promises. Most of the troops have already been withdrawn, with 40,000 "non-combat" troops remaining. All of that will leave in the next two months. JimSukwutput 17:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but I'm not quite sure whether we should post now or when the last troops actually leave. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose because it is still only a campaign promise. We should only post something when the troops leave. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're already leaving and all troops are scheduled to leave by the end of this year. This is a real agreement between the U.S. government and the Iraqi government that is being implemented on the ground, not a "campaign promise". Obama can't change this now even if he tries. JimSukwutput 18:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not how America does agreements. There is almost certainly a clause in there that says American troops may stay if certain emergency scenarios play out. Like, say, Iran invades Iraq. 24.159.22.26 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Post it when it happens, not when it is announced. --bender235 (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - We should post this when the last troops leave, because that is what will actually mark the end of the Iraq War. Due to the nature of ITN contributors not liking to post things more than once, I don't think we should post just the annoucement. I've added this to future events. Deterence also makes a good point below: short of all the troops actually leaving, there's simply no way we can guarantee that this announcement will be fulfilled (I'm sure it will, but we're still talking about a politician, here). Swarm X 19:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is this like Obama's announcement (and endlessly repeated election pledge) that he would close the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp? When it comes to politicians, actions speak louder than announcements. Deterence Talk 20:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Here's a summary (from WP): "For months, U.S. and Iraqi officials had been negotiating the terms of an accord that would have kept several thousand U.S. troops in Iraq for special operations and training beyond the year-end deadline set by the George W. Bush administration. But Obama and Maliki, who have never developed much personal chemistry, failed to reach agreement on the legal status of U.S. troops who would stay in Iraq beyond Dec. 31." Basically, Obama is announcing that he has failed to reach an agreement with the Iraqi government to keep certain troops behind, which effectively means that the U.S. is now forced to pull out all troops. This is not hypothetical. JimSukwutput 01:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the troops actually leave. If they do then it would be a significant development. I wouldn't call it "Iraq War ends" though since conflict is still ongoing in the country. Hut 8.5 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Announcement that something will happen in vague period of time is not a right news for ITN. I'll support it if something really happens.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It would be more meaningful to post something when U.S. troops actually leave Iraq. Respectfully, announcements are not events. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 22:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed departure of Americans from a country does not equate to the end of a war, unless you are a credulous American who believes everything a US politician says, and thinks that on ongoing conflict not involving Americans can't be called a war. (....he says, trying to diplomatically point out that the section heading is just a tad US centric.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There was nothing diplomatic about your comment. Your anti-Americanism was actually quite obvious. -- tariqabjotu 01:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That you have chosen to label and attack me rather than discuss the actual words I posted tells us everything we need to know about you. NOTHING I posted was anti-American! HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree entirely with Tariq. That comment was totally out of line. When the last "coalition" troops (in this case Americans) leave Iraq, the American president declares the war "over", and if media sources all reflect the concept that the war is "over" (as they seem to be doing already), then for our purposes the Iraq War is over. Swarm X 01:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HiLo48: Right. Accusing random users of being US-centric (note: I'm not an American; I live half-way across the world), implying that American citizens are gullible and that they're ignorant about the rest of the world - that was not anti-American at all. Do you even think before you type? JimSukwutput 01:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we all misunderstood you, feel free to clarify your position rather than patronizing us with "did you even read what I wrote?". As-is your comment reads as an insult to the nominator and/or anti-American. If your comment was not addressed to anyone and was just a general statement, I'm confused as to why you would write it in the first place. Swarm X 02:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While HiLo48's comments were a tad on the nose, his sentiments were spot-on. It is beyond ridiculous to suggest that the "Iraq war is over" simply because American troops, or coalition troops, have withdrawn from the order of battle. Further more, the vitriol that has been thrown at HiLo48 bespeaks of the American-centric bias around here even more than the patently absurd notion that an on-going war is no longer a "war" simply because America pulls its troops out. Deterence Talk 05:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a far greater problem at ITN with people loosely throwing around opinions and accusations of bias than there is with actual bias. The overwhelmingly peaceful, good faith collaboration that was fairly normal at ITN has really degenerated completely in some threads, it's a shame. Swarm X 05:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very non-specific, generised criticism. Hard to tell whose work you don't like. I suspect it's mine, but you don't have the guts to say so. I am totally comfortable with what I have said. If you want to criticise what I have said, do so, but do so by saying explicitly which of my words upset you. Don't hide behind generalisations. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't flatter yourself. ;) It's a totally general statement because there's not a single person (certainly not you) responsible for it. It's simply a trend I've been noticing for quite some time, now, long before this thread. Swarm X 20:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all due respect, I am disappointed by the nature of some of the comments on this nomination. First, I know that there is controversy whether Americans troops leaving constitute an end of the Iraq War, even though every news source is indeed referring to this as the "end of the Iraq War". That is precisely why I did not put anything about that into the blurb. If anyone has problems with the section title, feel free to edit it, but please comment on the blurb if you have the time. Second, this is not just an announcement, but an agreement. It effectively puts into end any chance that U.S. troops will remain by the end of this year. It has nothing to do with believing what a politician says and everything to do with reading the goddamn article. I am also puzzled as to why so many commentators wish to post a symbolic event (the departure of the last soldier) rather than the effective agreement that led to his departure. JimSukwutput 01:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. Commentators here don't seem to think legally bound agreements are credible enough. Fine, I respect that. Since this has no chance of passing, let me withdraw the nomination lest it becomes another cesspool for our regular anti-American trolls. JimSukwutput 02:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sad. Not the withdrawal, but the dummy spit. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ETA "ceasefire" effectively ends hostilities. The withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan simply changes the order of battle to an on-going conflict that is unlikely to slow down, and may well accelerate, subsequent to the American troop withdrawals. That said, I'll support an ITN posting for when the last American troops depart Afghanistan (obviously), but, that development is not set in stone. Deterence Talk 07:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'nothing important???????'--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not merely an announcement, but a presidential order, which carries force of law. While an about-face is possible, it's highly unlikely at this point. And I agree, posting the ETA ceasefire (which is arguably merely an 'announcement' as well) but not this is out of whack IMO; there's far more global interest in the conflict in Iraq, and the departure of major US forces there will change the nature of the conflict dramatically.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The U.S. has been withdrawing forces from Iraq for years. This is just the announcement that they will all be out by the end of the year. No one's referring to this announcement as the end of the war. Swarm X 20:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one's referring to this as the end of the Iraq War? Really? How about: This, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, or this? Did you even read what the official title of the press conference was? '"REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON ENDING THE WAR IN IRAQ". When I started this nomination I knew there were going to be some anti-American bigots who were going to complain if I were to proclaim that this was the end of war in Iraq in the blurb. That is exactly why I did no such thing. The only reason I used such wording in the section title is because it is the term used by every news source and hence what most people will refer it as. It is also much more succinct and easier to locate, which is the only purpose of a section title. As I've said, if anybody thinks that title offends their Australian/European/Asian sensibilities, feel free to change it. JimSukwutput 04:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, Jim. I suspect that I might find a few violations of WP:NPA, WP:SOAP or WP:CIVIL in your little rant. If I look closely. I don't care if Odin jumps in to personally declare that the withdrawal of American forces constitutes an end to the war in Iraq, the Iraq war is not over simply because Obama announces the withdrawal of American forces from the order of battle. The hundreds and thousands of ghosts of the future battlefield casualties in the Iraq war shall serve as a reminder that the war goes on, even if the mainstream media does not. Deterence Talk 04:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said that I consider this the end of the Iraq War, Deterence. If you're asking for my personal opinions (again), I'm a little confused as well about why this is referred to as the "end" of the Iraq War in the media. I don't find it a proper title and I might agree with you that there is a little bit of US-centrism in the way it is referred to. But this is the title that has been used by every news source I encountered; it is the official title used in the press release; and it is no doubt the title that many Wikipedian commentators here use to think about the event. As the nominator, I have the responsibility to use the most common and succinct title for the nomination, and not what I personally think is the best one. Again, that responsibility disappears outside of ITN discussions - which is why I put up a blurb that said nothing about the Iraq War ending. Are you not satisfied with that? Do you wish to spend more time speculating about my personal opinions, or do you want to actually discuss the blurb? JimSukwutput 04:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

October 20, 2011 (2011-10-20) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections


[Not ready] First two non-test satellites in the Galileo satellite system launched

Article: Galileo (satellite navigation) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The first two non-test satellites in the Galileo global navigation satellite system are launched from the newly built ELS Soyuz launching pad at the Guiana Space Centre. (Post)
News source(s): [14]
Article needs updating
  • Support as nominator An important milestone in the €20 billion European project. The launch was planned for today, but was postponed due to "technical reasons". The item should of course not be posted until the satellites are actually launched. I also included a sentence about the new Soyuz launching pad, for which this is the first launch; being able to launch Soyuz rockets from the equator will give the Soyuz rockets an assist, increasing their capacity. Thue | talk 17:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because satellites get launched all the time and they are not that interesting, although it might actually be ITNR which would make my opposition moot. I'd point out that it is not actually Friday yet. --FormerIP (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FormerIP - did you actually read the words above? The nominator went to a lot of trouble to explain why these satellites are important, and you posted as if no such effort had been made at all. We discuss things here. We don't just throw uninformed, knee-jerk reactions around. (Well, we shouldn't.) Oh, and the Friday comment is pointless.HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pah! So it's an important milestone in an expensive project. Isn't that true of every satellite launch that ever happens? Apparently there will be 30 of them. That's a lot of ITN real estate. --FormerIP (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you're now discussing the matter, even if non-constructively. The problem was that you first posted as if no attempt had been made to explain. And no, it's NOT like "every satellite launch". HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody suggested posting all the satellite launches ITN. And this project costs €20 billion - very few projects costs that much! For comparison, the 72 satellites in Iridium Next will cost 2.9 billion to build and launch in total. Thue | talk 21:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting the project is unimportant. But all space programmes are important, and the event that's scheduled is just the launching of some hardware into orbit. --FormerIP (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose without significant re-write of current blurb. These are not the first satellites of the Galileo programme: there have been two previous satellites, GIOVE-A and -B, to test technologies and claim the frequencies it operates on. Nor are these the final production satellites. I am satisfied this project is notable but the current blurb mis-states the case. As for FormerIP's comments on ITNR status, I re-drafted those following several discussions at WT:ITNR a couple of weeks ago: this is one of the things that would have been ITNR but now is not. I'm actually surprised those changes haven't attracted further discussion or at least tweaking. Nevertheless I don't think we can rely totally on the new form until it has been through the mill a couple of times. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I forgot about the test satellites. As I understand it, the first two test satellites will not be part of the constellation, but these two will? Since to me the main point is whether the satellites will be part of the final constellation, I would leave out the fact that this is not the final production model because only so much can fit in a blurb. I added a "non-test" to the blurb; I assume that makes the blurb acceptable to you? Thue | talk 10:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Launch of satellites in a project worth €20 billion is a big deal. However, the blurb needs rewording.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though the blurb may need altering. It is certainly true that not all satellites are ITN-worthy but this project is both much larger/costlier than most and more significant in terms of the political implications. Hut 8.5 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support notable as bigger than GPS and GLONASS. Covered in several notable press.--♫GoP♫TCN 10:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe most issues here have been resolved and the item has enough support to be posted. --Tone 20:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am taking my word back. The article in bold is in a very bad shape with several cleanup tags and I don't want put that on the Main page. When fixed, let me know. --Tone 20:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] ETA announce "definitive cessation" of attacks

Article: ETA (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Basque separatist organisation ETA announces a "definitive cessation of armed activity". (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

Article updated
That's not quite true. They called a "permanent ceasefire" in 2006 which they later broke. I bet we posted it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks updated. It also had two orange tags which I have sorted. --FormerIP (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Every end of armed activities is very important. This developing story marks an end of something that lasted for many years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting when I get to class (in about 20 minutes). Article appears to be updated. I could really use a little better blurb in the meantime, if possible. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor decision in my opinion, not even wikinews featured this. ETA announced ceasefires in 1989, 1996, 1998, 2006, 2010. In 2006 they said it is permanent, just political maneuvering nothing new really, the whole movement has been dying out for years; it's not like it was all-out war and now arms were laid down. Add to that that we are in a news-rich period which makes this event over-shadowed anyway: Obama announced retreat from Iraq, Nato announced the end of its mission in Libya, both of these events are related to a cessation of military activity but 1000 times more notable than an agonizing separatist movement that carried out minor attacks every 2-3 years Tachfin (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Gaddafi captured and killed

Article: Muammar Gaddafi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Libya, ousted dictator Muammar Gaddafi is reportedly captured and killed by NTC forces, who have taken full control of the city of Sirte. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, CBS News
Article updated
It appears to be confirmed now. However, I object to the current blurb with "captured". I don't think he was captured. He was just killed. --SMasters (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Libyan Prime Minster has now confirmed this, as well as the British PM. Full support. --SMasters (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Libya, ousted dictator Muammar Gaddafi is reported by NTC forces to have been killed in the city of Sirte
Pedro :  Chat  14:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait until we can just confidently say "killed". It won't be long. --FormerIP (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We ought to mention that Sirte has been captured in there as well. Hut 8.5 14:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Al Jazeera is showing a video of people kicking the body around with a decent head shot, so I'm guessing that's that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AlJazeera is reporting independently now. Posting. --Tone 14:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? There's an update in the intro section and a whole paragraph on his capture and death, with independent quotes from media. Put it back... --Tone 14:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, I went ahead an unprotected the article, so that half is taken care of. Second, the article still reads like it's about a living person. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's different than it not be mentioned (though it is an issue) Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Shouldn't there be a picture of Gadaffi on the Main Page? News of his death by far surpasses the freeing of Shalit. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand why we seem to be in a race with the mass media to get these things posted. People don't rely on Wikipedia for breaking news reports. They rely on Wikipedia to get more information than beyond the headlines, and there is very little of that in the article. JimSukwutput 15:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the wording on the main page suggests this is verified. From what I've heard and read through multiple sources, its just based on initial reports from rebels at the moment. This should say that he is presumed to have been killed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has. (Better link: here) — Joseph Fox 16:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like that's the way it was, though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaddaffi Update

Both French and American planes attacked the Gaddaffi convoy but he was killed by the American Predator Drone. This was not a purely a NTC forces operation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that affect the blurb? I think the main stories are still that he was killed and that the army took control of the stronghold. Nightw 23:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source you've provided does not support the claim that he was killed by the drone (it says "Col Muammar Gaddafi’s convoy was bombed by an American Predator drone and then attacked by French jets before the deposed dictator was killed by rebel fighters"). Hut 8.5 23:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Sirte falls to NTC

Article: Battle of Sirte (2011) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Libya, NTC forces have taken full control of Gaddafi's last stronghold Sirte, effectively ending the 2011 Libyan civil war. (Post)
News source(s): Al-Jazeera, BBC
No, it's not out of line. It's what the sources say. --bender235 (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not the ones linked to. The BBC says "supporters are still resisting government forces in the town of Bani Walid, south-east of Tripoli" and "the fall of Sirte, if confirmed, represents a very significant moment in the overthrow of Col Gaddafi". --FormerIP (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now reported dead. --FormerIP (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivian protests

Article: 2011 Bolivian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After two months of marching, protesters reach the Bolivian capital of La Paz (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Previously nom'd at ITN after violence erupted weeks ago, but now they marchers have reached the capital and are welcomed by citizens and the Info Mnin. now the issue is what will happen to end the protessts. see the article Lihaas (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone get that? Nightw 06:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Swarm X 07:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Significant protest for South America. Likely minority topic. ~AH1 (discuss!) 14:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio animal frenzy

Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​ To be determined (Post)
News source(s): Wall Street Journal, All related articles
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is probably a relative longshot to get posted given there's no article I can find and I have no clue what to write for a blurb, but it seems pretty big news...in Ohio a man released multiple "exotic animals", including lions, tigers, and bears (oh my! =P) from their cages and then took his own life; law enforcement that responded were forced to kill 48 of the animals. --Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. DYK candidate, maybe, but this is really a novelty. JimSukwutput 04:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally I would have said the same thing except for when I found it on Google News and saw the link "All 3,097 related articles »" it kinda tipped me towards nominating...it's getting really widespread press coverage (in the United States, at least). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, this easily one of the top news stories in the US right now. It really is an interesting story and it would definitely be an excellent DYK, but as Jim says, it's a novelty and it really doesn't satisfy our significance criterion. Swarm X 05:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The mass media reports based on interest, not on significance. That's the core distinction between Wikipedia and the news, and it's a distinction that I strongly insist we maintain. JimSukwutput 15:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wow, that's just morbid. Eighteen tigers! Doesn't that technically make this a conservation story? Nightw 05:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

October 19, 2011 (2011-10-19) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics

Westlife split

Article: Westlife (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The members of Westlife announce they are to split. (Post)
News source(s): Westlife to split up
Article needs updating
Westlife were not influential per se, but one cannot deny they were one of, if not the most successful boyband of all time (behind perhaps Take That). — Joseph Fox 15:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most successful, but hardly innovative like a huge percentage of its counterparts, more like, as another poster, said another boyband that sprang up in the boyband bronze era. Donnie Park (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It would be strangely satisfying if the two things that got posted today were the Gadaffi story and then Westlife splitting up. --FormerIP (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without wishing to be too flippant, simply my favourite ever nomination for ITN. We have global economic misery, some Libyan fella pushing up the daisies, a new baby for the Sarkozys, ETA saying they blow anyone up any more, and someone thinks Westlife is notable. Worse, that Westlife splitting up is notable. Is it 1 April? Come on.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They're the fourth best selling boy band of all time, so what? Would we post the Backstreet Boys or New Kids on the Block quitting (two of the three bands ahead of them in sales)? As an aside, they're still going on tour next year, so at least wait til then. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose If they was as significant as the Rolling Stones, I say support but for a band who have never seen a single Grammy, never seen the top of the Billboard Hot 100 multiple times, never shifted records by the oil tanker loads or had fanbase to the level of the Beatles and some people in some countries will say who the [bleep] are they, this is why I say oppose. Donnie Park (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its the day the music died. Why does everybody hate them? Maybe you should read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.219 (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The Day the Music Died", I wished that was trademarked by the estates of Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and The Big Bopper to stop people like you abusing that term. One of the group cited by one of your source, Spice Girls, at least was far more influential to them in comparison, apart their significant contribution to the girl groups movements, they climbed to the top of Billboard Hot 100 once amongst their other top 10 hits there, Westlife in comparison managed to settle for 20 with their only hit, making them a Hot 100 one hit wonder, the other is opinion by an Irish newspaper by an unnamed person. As with citing articles, other than Irish and british newspapers, can I see an article by an major US newspaper such as The New York Times and can you please stop accusing us for hating them, at least I am a neutral opinion. Donnie Park (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No. A thousand times, no. Deterence Talk 22:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General strike in Greece

Article: 2010–2011_Greek_protests#.22Holy_Week.22 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Greek workers begin a general strike against austerity measures. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Article needs updating

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wea support perhaps we can ahave a sticy of global protests...Wall St, Chile, Greece, Boliviea, Aab Spring, etc.Lihaas (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Although we can't post every development in Greece, this seems like significant news and also important because the Greek parliament is voting on its austerity bill today. --FormerIP (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently riots have broken out..again. It seems like the students are battling the communist trade unionists. JimSukwutput 15:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has been one of the leading news story in every decent media outlet in the Western world for yonks, largely because this provides are rather graphic illustration of the frontline of attempts to deal with the global recession and the European debt crisis. I'm quite speechless in the face of claims that this is nothing more than "a storm in a teacup". Deterence Talk 23:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viking boat unearthed in the UK

Article: Ardnamurchan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Viking boat grave from the 10th century is unearthed in Ardnamurchan in the UK. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Article needs updating

 --Johnsemlak (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a separate article existed, that would be a great DYK item, I'd say... --Tone 11:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

October 18, 2011 (2011-10-18) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Politics

Science

Spaceport America

Article: Spaceport America (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Spaceport America in New Mexico, United States, officially opens as the world's first commercial spaceport (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald, BBC News

Simply south...... playing tunes for 5 years 22:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, article has not been updated. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a change of a purely ceremonial nature. Suborbital flights have already flown from this facility. Tourist flights have yet to commence. Where then is the substantive new event beyond some corporate hospitality bash? Crispmuncher (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Man Booker Prize

Article: Julian Barnes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Julian Barnes wins the 2011 Man Booker Prize for his novel The Sense of an Ending. (Post)
News source(s): [18]
Credits:

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Due just before 10 pm UK time. This is a recurring item. A new article for the winning book has been prepared by the updater. --FormerIP (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO article or will ever be one called "some author" and "some book title" Further, the comment of ITNR you made DUPLICATES the already recorded ITNR comment. I fell like i lost iq having to explain that ')
And what does "ahem" mean?Lihaas (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It means "oh dear, it seems someone has rudely decided to amend my comment, which they shouldn't". If I want to link to non-existent articles and reiterate stuff I will, thanks.I feel like I lost dignity having to explain that--FormerIP (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, are you seriously unable to tell that those are placeholders because we don't know who's going to win yet? Modest Genius talk 19:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British author Julian Barnes is awarded the 2011 Man Booker Prize for his novel The Sense of an Ending. If you'll give me a couple of minutes, an article for the book will be available. - JuneGloom Talk 20:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the book must have a decent-length article before tentative posting. SpencerT♦C 20:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I've been working on the article for about three hours now. - JuneGloom Talk 21:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book' doesn't need an article, but needs to be adequately covered in a properly updated article somewhere on Wikipedia (that would be a higher standard than we applied to some of the Nobel winners). Not that I'm saying you should scrap your work, June. If we have an article, then that's even better. --FormerIP (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did update Barnes' article. Let's put it this way, you are going to have an article on the book. ;) - JuneGloom Talk 21:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so cocksure. It might get speedy deleted. I've marked as ready, though. --FormerIP (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more likely to go to AfD than get speedy deleted. If the book didn't win, I wouldn't have moved the article to the mainspace, but it does pass WP:BK now. - JuneGloom Talk 22:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't being serious. Other books by Barnes that didn't win the Booker have articles. --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither was I. :) I did check the article conditions of Barnes' other books and last year's Booker Prize winner, which only has one reference. :/ - JuneGloom Talk 22:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Reposted] Gilad Shalit release

Article: Gilad Shalit (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is released in exchange for the release of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners. (Post)
News source(s): Sky News
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Israel and Palestinian militants has agreed to a prisoner swap which will see Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit released and a uncertain number of Palestinian prisoners. BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC), Added to ITN Page from archive on 00:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - This is pretty major news. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support when he gets released. --Tone 19:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
obvious support IF an when it happens. could create a new article for it too. Or a collated article of hostage swaps between the two with sections for each. (what about the hostage swaps for bodies (boths sides))?Lihaas (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once it happens. 1000 prisoners release in exchange for one certainly is notable.[19]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but how will we find room in the blurb for the all the names of the 1,000 Palestinians? --FormerIP (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think we need to change the "hundreds" to "more than a thousand", As its 1,027.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - did we do updates on the release of the hikers held in Iran, freed for $1 M? Yes, the story has human interest, but it's not big news outside of the people involved. I also think it unfortunate that many of the radio commentators have used the proposed trade to opine that the parties have "set an exchange rate" between Arabs and Israelis, and that all tit-for-tats now need 1000 to one; whether it's prisoner releases or retaliations, or whatever. If that becomes the norm, this would be newsy, but methinks that radio show hosts (thankfully) don't control such behavior. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a gross underestimate of what the situation is. Israel has a used Shilat as a reason for waging conflict and some of those 1,207 Palestinian prisoners aren't just political--they're legitimate terrorists. The fact that this is Hamas's great victory at home so soon after Fatah's great victory abroad is no coincidence and when we add that this shows Egypt post-Mubarak is still able to play a role as regional mediator adds up to a very big, very important issue. The results may not be obviously groundshaking, but they are far-reaching. Having said that, support only if it actually happens. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's hold off on the use of emotional POV language like "terrorists". Given how easy it is for a Palestinians to end up in an Israeli prison it's a bit of a stretch to assume that all (or even close to all) the 1027 Palestinian prisoners are actual "terrorists". Deterence Talk 09:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong and obvious wait shalit is NOT released, ad since the story is his release as opposed to the 1000+ others when he is finally released then post, itll be top newsLihaas (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The exchange took place according to the media, now waiting for the article update. --Tone 09:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the day. - Tenebris 11:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.83 (talk)

The update is there, photos as well. Could use one for MP. Posting now. --Tone 13:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled The article is not updated at all. Yes, it contains a lot of information, but I don't even think the fact that he has been released is even in the article. Almost the entire article is written in future tense, as if the entire deal has yet to occur. -- tariqabjotu 16:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange is updated, and that is the article that is bolded... —Akrabbimtalk 16:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found this in the Commons, but will keep looking. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israeli_and_Palestinian_Flags.png - Tenebris 16:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.218 (talk)
(edit conflict) Have you actually read the article? It is horribly outdated. As I said, it's almost entirely in future tense for events that already happened. It says nothing about his return to Israel, suggesting (in a short sentence in the lead) that he has just been transferred to Cairo. Not updated at all; this isn't even borderline. -- tariqabjotu 16:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles with this kind of massive support and obvious newsworthy-ness should be posted no matter what.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the article could be improved, it is important enough to be posted as a news item as-is. It doesn't look good for us to not mention a >1000 dangerous prisoner release, and the extra attention it receives on the front page would prompt further update. There was nothing significant in the consensus to support only when perfect. Mamyles (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Qvit thy qvetching! and come help with the improvements. Definitely it needs them, but apparently they fell under a Someone Else's Problem Field. Faster they get done, faster it goes up. - Tenebris 20:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.218 (talk)
I should be surprised, but somehow I'm not. For some reason, people feel we should post outdated articles on the Main Page when big news events occur. No, the article doesn't need to be perfect, but it's not too much to ask that it at least mention the fact that's on the Main Page. It's not too much to ask that the relevant news item --- that Shalit's back at home in Israel -- is noted somewhere in the article in a non-future tense. All I'm seeing here is excuses; there's an abundance of information about this event, and if no one cares enough to put some of that very basic information in the article, it shouldn't be on the Main Page. Full stop. -- tariqabjotu 19:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reposted. Now updated, and will improve with further Main Page exposure. Neutralitytalk 19:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Completed some major restructuring and text imports, but I am out of time for today. Can someone else finish updating the actual deal? It would also be useful to add previous negotiation wrt the Palestinians who are part of the deal. As the article stands, there is only the list, which describes them only in terms of the crime or sentence they were serving. Oh, and in a (somewhat rushed) Commons search, the flag pic linked above was the only reasonably neutral picture I could find. I hesitate to use those from the article itself. - Tenebris 20:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

October 17

October 17, 2011 (2011-10-17) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Politics and elections

Science

Philadelphia basement kidnapping event

Article: Philadelphia basement kidnapping event (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Authorities find four people held against their will in a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania basement, arresting four suspects. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.philly.com/philly/news/132195298.html
Credits:

Nominator's comments: with over 2,500 news articles on this, and a very unusual profile of the crime, this both a notable article (new) and a notable news event. --Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, i will note it has received international coverage. If I was responsible for INT/R, i apologize, as i am new at this, dont know that it refers to.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] Kosovo-Serbia

Article: 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Renewed clashes occur in Northern Kosovo amidst threats by NATO's Kosovo Force to forcibly remove Kosovan Serb roadblocks. (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Its still ongoing and current today with the ultimatum so expect more clahses.Lihaas (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? I just updated before om, check my usercontribs too. see "Renewed clashes"Lihaas (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "KFOR's commander said that his troops would forcibly remove roadblocks on 17 October if Kosovan Serbs did not voluntarily do so" update is insufficient for the main page. Therefor, not updated. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient ad NOT updated is differet. At ayn rate weve got a several line paragraph on there.Lihaas (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
borders are not only intl they can be PROVINCIAL too...perfectly ambigous. NO ONE asserts on the article that it is an INTERNATIONAL borderLihaas (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas is correct. Before independence, there was still a clearly delineated border between Central Serbia and Kosovo and Metohija, just as there is a border between Serbia and Vojvodina. So it's not at all POV, as these are clearly demarcated and recognized lines, it's just not recognized what they represent. --Golbez (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only other way of wording it is "line of control" - but border seems reasonable enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or "boundary", for another alternative which does not carry quite the connotations of "border". As a note, the current cycle of Kosovo-Serbia head-butting has been going on for at least three weeks (based on the local Serbian newspaper), and the scuffles/protests are still very small scale (especially by comparison with things that have gone before). Although, of course, the emotions involved are not. They never are, in that region. - Tenebris 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.187 (talk)
Good point, its on the road LEADING to the border crossing.
But we should discuss page moveson the talk page ot here.Lihaas (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually hoping it would fix just the blurb for now. Based on the article, there are clashes on the North Kosovo/Kosovo proper border as well. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead with what you think is appropriate
The article is updated as said above with the deadline passed and new negotiations/debates ongoing. It aint old ews yet.Lihaas (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
better blurb? Mark ready?Lihaas (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the blurb is OK.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I turned "KFOR" into "NATO's Kosovo Force", avoiding a disambiguation and making it more understandable. I also noted the blockades were Serb, but this is perhaps could be an issue? Anyway, I think ready. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Largely no probs to me, but id put Kosovan Serbs to differentiate from Serbia proper. (whole diff context, esp with an eu-aligned govt in belgrade that goes easy on intl pressure)
as an aside, whoever posts this should temp lock the page as it opens for pov/vandalism VERY easilyLihaas (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2 diff excuses i 2 days? sept 17 clashes, 18 ultimatum and renewed roadblocks, todays 19 morn...updated again. change the blurb if need be to include ultimatum. Also see the RT source of stone throwing (which is violent)Lihaas (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the clashes happened a month ago, it's stale. If something comes out of the ultimatum, that can be posted. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its NOT stale because you dont lie it. its not 2 months ago its ONGOING, read the section! This is your THID excuse to not post it!Lihaas (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

October 17, 2011 (2011-10-17) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Politics and elections

Science

Philadelphia basement kidnapping event

Article: Philadelphia basement kidnapping event (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Authorities find four people held against their will in a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania basement, arresting four suspects. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.philly.com/philly/news/132195298.html
Credits:

Nominator's comments: with over 2,500 news articles on this, and a very unusual profile of the crime, this both a notable article (new) and a notable news event. --Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, i will note it has received international coverage. If I was responsible for INT/R, i apologize, as i am new at this, dont know that it refers to.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] Kosovo-Serbia

Article: 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Renewed clashes occur in Northern Kosovo amidst threats by NATO's Kosovo Force to forcibly remove Kosovan Serb roadblocks. (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Its still ongoing and current today with the ultimatum so expect more clahses.Lihaas (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? I just updated before om, check my usercontribs too. see "Renewed clashes"Lihaas (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "KFOR's commander said that his troops would forcibly remove roadblocks on 17 October if Kosovan Serbs did not voluntarily do so" update is insufficient for the main page. Therefor, not updated. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient ad NOT updated is differet. At ayn rate weve got a several line paragraph on there.Lihaas (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
borders are not only intl they can be PROVINCIAL too...perfectly ambigous. NO ONE asserts on the article that it is an INTERNATIONAL borderLihaas (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas is correct. Before independence, there was still a clearly delineated border between Central Serbia and Kosovo and Metohija, just as there is a border between Serbia and Vojvodina. So it's not at all POV, as these are clearly demarcated and recognized lines, it's just not recognized what they represent. --Golbez (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only other way of wording it is "line of control" - but border seems reasonable enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or "boundary", for another alternative which does not carry quite the connotations of "border". As a note, the current cycle of Kosovo-Serbia head-butting has been going on for at least three weeks (based on the local Serbian newspaper), and the scuffles/protests are still very small scale (especially by comparison with things that have gone before). Although, of course, the emotions involved are not. They never are, in that region. - Tenebris 18:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.187 (talk)
Good point, its on the road LEADING to the border crossing.
But we should discuss page moveson the talk page ot here.Lihaas (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually hoping it would fix just the blurb for now. Based on the article, there are clashes on the North Kosovo/Kosovo proper border as well. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead with what you think is appropriate
The article is updated as said above with the deadline passed and new negotiations/debates ongoing. It aint old ews yet.Lihaas (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
better blurb? Mark ready?Lihaas (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the blurb is OK.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I turned "KFOR" into "NATO's Kosovo Force", avoiding a disambiguation and making it more understandable. I also noted the blockades were Serb, but this is perhaps could be an issue? Anyway, I think ready. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Largely no probs to me, but id put Kosovan Serbs to differentiate from Serbia proper. (whole diff context, esp with an eu-aligned govt in belgrade that goes easy on intl pressure)
as an aside, whoever posts this should temp lock the page as it opens for pov/vandalism VERY easilyLihaas (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2 diff excuses i 2 days? sept 17 clashes, 18 ultimatum and renewed roadblocks, todays 19 morn...updated again. change the blurb if need be to include ultimatum. Also see the RT source of stone throwing (which is violent)Lihaas (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the clashes happened a month ago, it's stale. If something comes out of the ultimatum, that can be posted. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its NOT stale because you dont lie it. its not 2 months ago its ONGOING, read the section! This is your THID excuse to not post it!Lihaas (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

October 16, 2011 (2011-10-16) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture
  • A ceremony is held to officially re-name the English town of Wootton Bassett with the prefix "Royal" in honour of its role in the repatriation of British military personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the first town to receive such an honour since 1909. (BBC)

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted x2] Dan Wheldon

Article: Dan Wheldon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Racing driver Dan Wheldon is killed in an IndyCar race at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. (Post)
News source(s): [20]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: We actually have another ITNR motorsport candidate for today in that the F1 Constructor's championship was decided. However, I don't anticipate the appetite for two stories up at once so I figure this one probably trumps the F1 crown. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Very sad and quite possibly ITN-worthy, but four of five current ITN stories are US-related. Could we maybe make an effort to diversify? --FormerIP (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was British, it just happened at a US track, is that fair enough?Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 23:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it's a US story with a foreign angle. --FormerIP (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a UK story with a foreign angle. — Joseph Fox 16:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, no-one in the UK had ever heard of this guy. Okay, his mother, possibly. --FormerIP (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sports story, for god's sake. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is not about being nationalistic or anything like that at all. This open wheel race car driver won two of the most high profile races and he won it this year by the way. Plus, he died in his chosen field as well, which makes this even more ITN worthy in the first place. This is the first death in the sport of IndyCar since 2006 when Paul Dana lost his life, which he was not even remotely close to this race car drivers noteworthiness. This story has made national and international news, so it needs to go up.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Important figure in his field died not from old age. ... (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. — Joseph Fox 02:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenyan troops enter Somalia

Article: War in Somalia (2009–) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kenya deploys forces to Somalia in pursuit of al-Shabaab militants. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Article needs updating

93.137.162.123 (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure you've explained why this event is especially significant. Kenyan troops crossing into Somalia does not seem to be all that unusual, as can be seen from these news stories from earlier this year: [21] [22]. --FormerIP (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - military incursions into foreign countries are generally notable. The backstory with militants kidnapping foreigners is also internationally significant. Thue | talk 15:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do we know if this has the approval of the TFG government (who is recognized by many countries as the legit govt)? I ask this because the TFG government has already authorised the CTF-150, Russia and India to enter Somalian territory in pursuit of terrorists/pirates. While I agree foreign boots on the ground within any country is generally notable, it may be of limited significance given examples quoted by Former IP and if it has TFG approval. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the BBC (not up for deletion), the Somali government is claiming that Kenya is providing logistical support to a Somali-led operation. I'm not saying, BTW, that this is an unpostable story. But we should understand it, update the article and then post, in that order. --FormerIP (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is up for deletion. Wikipedia articles about contemporary events covered by the media are almost always ambushed by the usual petty trolls and put up for deletion. Deterence Talk 20:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the earlier refugee nomination and associated background, the Kenya-Somalia border has been a complicated thing for some time now. Not theoretical -- not quite -- but far too much spillover for it to hold the same solid border associatiations we are generally used to. Incidentally, the group the Kenyan military is after has long been using that same border in the opposite way. - Tenebris 10:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.211 (talk)

This story also seems to be of relevance. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also now the decision by the UNHCR to suspend aid operations in the Dadaab refugee camp (the largest in the world). Nightw 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support From initial reports I've seen (like the BBC one given by FormerIP and props for the "BBC (not up for deletion)"), this seems to be quite an unusual event in terms of its publicity if nothing else. It's a full fledged military operation, rather than an obscure border raid. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a significant event and has gained substantial international media coverage. Deterence Talk 20:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me this looks ready to go. The update is only a paragraph, but there's a hatnote to that other article (which we obviously can't directly link to thanks to the AfD) containing more information. Any other issues? Nightw 23:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks ready, but think the blurb needs work. Think the issue is not giving the false impression of an act of aggression or breach of sovereign rights against the Somali government. Because the article is quite long, think the bold link should be to the relevant sub-section. --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I bet it could technically be construed as some kind of breach, but I don't think the Somali government is in much of a position to complain. Or to do anything at all. I think the blurb is fine in terms of impressions, although perhaps a bit more detail would be nice. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, the Somali transitional government has publicly endorsed the actions of the Kenyan military. Deterence Talk 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King, Jr Memorial

Article: Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial is dedicated in Washington, D.C.. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The monument was originally opened on 22 August was was to be dedicated with appearances by Barack Obama and an estimated crowd of 250,000. The dedication was delayed by the hurricane and will happen today with appearances by Aretha Franklin, Sheryl Crow, and others.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To try to put some perspective on this, the scale and position of this federally sanctioned memorial are normally reserved for former US presidents; this memorial is positioned among the memorials to FDR, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. It's nearly 2 Hectares large. It's an extremely powerful recognition of MLK's place in history.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the article is in great shape and we've featured dedications of important monuments before. --Tone 13:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree that the article is good enough - one of those occasions where a sentence might constitute enough of an update. --FormerIP (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit since I nominated it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great looking article, and as far as monuments go, it's hard to find more significance. Swarm 16:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a good article and an event that is likely to attract diverse interest. However, the "Dedication" section of the article will need to be updated to reflect what actually happened at the dedication. --Orlady (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready The Dedication section is not updated. It hasn't even been put into past tense. As Orlady said, the article should mention what actually happened at the dedication, not that a dedication will happen. -- tariqabjotu 19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a statue. The events it commemorates were hugely notable, the statue itself is not. Modest Genius talk 21:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been open for two months but after the dedication was delayed by Hurricane Irene I waited until now to nominate it. It certainly did not become less notable during that time. As to people saying 'it's just a statue', well, it's not just a statue. It's a 2 hectare national monument and it's put in an extremely reserved position, as noted above, between the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial. This level of recognition had only been given to the most famous US presidents. The statue was sculpted by renowned Chinese artist Lei Yixin. I'd put this on par with the renovation of the Louvre museum. This has to be one of the most significant statues or monuments built in the last decade.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I'm hesitant about posting anything that is purely celebratory, even though this is getting a lot of attention. But we haven't posted anything remotely similar for months, so I'll support for diversity's sake. JimSukwutput 21:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Four of five current ITN stories are US-related. Could we maybe make an effort to diversify? --FormerIP (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the Iran story and the LRA story are very much international stories, and the nationality of Ritchie is of perhaps tertiary importance to the story. Personally, I think that lessens the issue. -- tariqabjotu 23:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very much international stories that just so happen to be particularly significant from a US perspective. I'm not suggesting anything can be done except making Wikipedians less parochial by an act of will. Just making a point, really. --FormerIP (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose one country ot notable., ad id do the same for gandhi/churchill/mandela/mao/stalin/lenin, etc. (exept maybe nit bouazizis as theyre ot public figures.)Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This user is able to contribute with a professional level of English." Please start proving it, the above is virtually unreadable. --Golbez (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to do apostrophes in a text message? I honestly don't know! But Lihaas -- your spelling actually does show your competence. You don't use the contractions that are a headache to all of us. There was only one outright typo. Now (please) be careful not to drop letters by accident? lest you be judged by that alone? - Tenebris 18:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.187 (talk)
  • Support (though it is not likely to get posted now). This is indeed one of the more notable memorials to be unveiled recently, and those saying it is 'just' a memorial need to understand that. The question I would ask is whether nominations like this are only posted in a 'slow news' week, and whether overly focusing on the news items making 'headlines' (as opposed to just ordinary news) adequately meets the 'not news' and 'highlighting updates to encyclopedia articles' aims of ITN. The other question I would ask is whether the unveiling of any memorial would get on ITN. Did the unveiling of the various 9/11 memorials get featured on ITN? That sort of mental balancing should be done by those participating at ITN, but that rarely happens. Carcharoth (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

October 15, 2011 (2011-10-15) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Politics and elections

Sport

Netherlands wins 2011 Baseball World Cup

Article: 2011 Baseball World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Netherlands becomes the first European nation to win the Baseball World Cup since the inaugural event in 1938, defeating Cuba 2–1 in the final. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: It is a relative big event and as said in the blurb, it is the first time since the first event that a European nation wins the cup. --Styath (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - Definetely a highly notable event and a historic first. Article is long and seems to be in good shape. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure on the rules with these tournament articles, but it looks like you may need a bit more prose. Other than that, it's ready to go. Nightw 09:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what? One can only beat those that turn up, and the Netherlands did just that. Your post sounds like excuses. HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is there is an international baseball tournament that does feature the world's best baseball players. This isn't it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll go along with that. The earlier post made it sound like the Netherlands' win wasn't important because the USA sent a weak team. ITN/R is important. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This tournament is not nearly as significant as the World Baseball Classic, and we do have to be somewhat selective about what we post in terms of sporting events. Despite its name, this really doesn't come close to making the cut. To put things into perspective, in this tournament, 73 games were played, and the total attendance was only 156,046. This number is completely dwarfed by the five-game 2010 World Series (243,607) and the 39-game 2009 World Baseball Classic (801,408). Swarm 10:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't attempting to relate the attendance figures to the importance, I was just trying to provide perspective on how very minor this baseball tournament is compared to some other ones. Swarm 20:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Withdrawn] October 15th protests

Article: Global protests of October 15th, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Protests inspired by Occupy Wall Street erupt in 100's of cities world wide. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The article is still a bit thin, but worldwide protests over something are usually newsworthy. --108.132.169.195 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Definitely a headline of Saturday and article content updated. Should be published ASAP as yesterdays news is what we should not have I guess? (although its frequesntly the case here, unfortunatelly)--Kozuch (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is almost entirely made up of primary sources - most directly cited from OWS websites. Need some real sources documenting actual protests in "hundreds" of cities. WikifanBe nice 23:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless article is radically expanded. This is still pretty much same as last weekend, with number of events and attendance mostly pulled from Facebook. Also, Rome, Athens, London and Madrid each have such demonstrations on a daily basis. --hydrox (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The protests are still extremely small in-scale, with some riots going on in Rome and a few hundred copycat protesters in London (who have been protesting since two years ago). And all the protests are limited to a few wealthy developed countries, so it is quite silly to call this phenomenon "worldwide". JimSukwutput 23:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar pedant comment In the blurb, "100's" is horrible! Please say "hundreds". It's only two more key strokes. (I counted one for the Shift key.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a European pedant, I offer the comment that the Occupy Wall Street protest was inspired by the "Indignant" protests in Madrid, which are amongst those that have been held today. So "inspired by Occupy Wall Street" would be totalmente inadecuado. --FormerIP (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for the "horrible blurb", I'm crying anon tears now. The article I posted said "Rallies were held in more than 900 cities in Europe, Africa and Asia" so I guess it was also quite silly to click the link and read all the way down to the second paragraph. Withdrawn. You people are ridiculous. --108.132.169.195 (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a standalone, the October 15 protests were not noteworthy with the possible exceptions of Rome and Madrid, where they were fueled by something rather different than the Occupy Wall Street 1%/99% and background foreclosure/bank bailout uneasiness. Hundreds of cities may be a vast, vast overstatement. Honestly, as it stands, I do not think a significant OWS protest will survive the winter -- but then again, the movement has already survived a couple of weeks longer than I originally thought it would. Still, for a possibly different ITN article, IF there is a tipping point into noteworthiness, how to recognise it? The Arab Spring took so many different forms, but one commonality was that the protests intensified after people died, the goal to be reached at all costs. Currently, although I can see frustration and also the only outcome that could really relieve that frustration, I do not see that same determination here. At the same time, no one died in the Tea Party protests, and those did reach the point that they were considered ITN noteworthy (and that before the Tea Party became a significant faction of the GOP). If we consider ourselves capable of making the judgement, we should also be able to answer what would constitute sufficient noteworthiness in this case. - Tenebris 07:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.247 (talk)

  • Support There were large protests elsewhere as well ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_October_2011_global_protests#List_of_gatherings_by_city ) but more importantly, it really was in 950 cities ( edition.cnn.com/2011/10/15/world/occupy-goes-global/index.html ). The protests were organized by many groups, including OWS, Indignados, Real Democracy Now, Anonymous and others, however, and most of the protesters probably weren't even affiliated with any particular group, so it might be best not to name any and just speak of "global protests". IMO the Article has become of high standard now, and as a candidate for the main portal it should be considered by quality rather than quantity. It has a very extensive list of references and a great deal of relevant information, and the only reason it may still seem "a bit thin" is because it is so succinct. Obviously we can't go into detail about each of the 950 protests so the article can mostly just give general information about the whole along with a few highlights, all the more since the protests differed across the globe. This is world news if ever there was any, far more important than almost all news on the main portal. I edited the article and added another section, but for a one-day event I don't think there's much more left to say about it. Hypernovic (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] US sends 100 troops to battle the Lord's Resistence Army

Article: Lord's Resistance Army (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States sends 100 armed military advisers to help defeat the Lord's Resistence Army in central Africa. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The soldiers “will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense.” But I still consider it notable that the US is becoming involved in what is effectively a war. Thue

  • comment If this is going to be posted, it should say "Obama notifies Congress" he is sending troops. Not "America". He is acting on his own without authority. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, he is the executive branch of the US government, so it is not unreasonable to say "the US does", when it is Obama who gives the order. Also, he does cite the Lord's Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act which authorizes the "increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability" according to the NYT article. Without looking into it more deeply, that sentense does arguably give him the authority from Congress to send military advisers. Thue | talk 23:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A quote from the law passed by Congress, my bolding: providing political, economic, military, and intelligence support for viable multilateral efforts to protect civilians from the Lord’s Resistance Army, to apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield in the continued absence of a negotiated solution, and to disarm and demobilize the remaining Lord’s Resistance Army fighters. Thue | talk 23:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fighting has been going on for decades, with hundreds of African troops dead. The U.S. sending a few advisers that won't actually be fighting anybody is not a significant development in this story. Nightw 12:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LRA has been supported by Sudan, but now that South Sudan has split off, perhaps the LRA will be more vulnerable. So there is a good chance that fighting will not continue for decades more. Perhaps the sending of the military advisers is happening now because the LRA is vulnerable? Thue | talk 19:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unless something notable (major battle, etc.) happens when they are there. SpencerT♦C 14:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's easy to underestimate the impact of military advisers. What many of the government forces in central African states need is qualified leadership, and the U.S. troops are a great contribution to this scarcity. Besides, sending military advisers is often a prelude to sending actual troops, as countless wars in the past (e.g. Vietnam) have taught us. JimSukwutput 16:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vietnam was invaded. This is a bunch of advisers. If actual troops are sent, then that will be worthy of posting. Nightw 23:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking to the topic, I'm saying that when "actual troops", "combat troops", etc are sent, that might be notable. This is not. Nightw 08:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the point completely. This IS notable precisely because the Vietnam debacle began with military advisers. Some of us can remember and have learnt from history. HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're speculating about why the event might become notable in the future. That the Vietnam war begun with a deployment of military advisers does not then mean that all subsequent deployments of military advisers to other places are notable or that they will have the same results. Nightw 14:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "all" - I said "often". And if you look at the historical evidence, that's a perfectly valid and verifiable statement, so it has nothing to do with WP:SPECULATION (a better term would be expectation, which there is no reason not to take into account on ITN). JimSukwutput 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Sukwutput. The presence of American troops - regardless of their role - changes the military landscape significantly and comes substantial political symbolism. And as Sukwutput has noted, historically, such deployments have regularly led to more decisive developments. Deterence Talk 22:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sukwutput may have "noted" that, but it is incorrect. The vast vast majority of advisor deployments don't result in any further U.S. military involvement. Geeze, do a little research every now and then, save yourself the embarassment. 24.159.22.26 (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - major news. Deployments to new countries don't happen every day. Neutralitytalk 03:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Deterence, Jim and Thue. The sending of the force is, in itself, significant. Swarm 03:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose-ish Comment: The US has deployed its military in 150 countries, so I am not sure how significant the deployment alone is. As pointed out above, speculations that this might be prelude to something bigger are well, just speculations. So the arguments put forth so far aren't exactly convincing. But that said, I must concede that I am not entirely aware of the military equation on the ground and therefore, wouldn't comment on how decisive the presence of 100 advisors would be. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the linked article, only two of those deployments are listed as "combat zones" (though Pakistan and Columbia should arguably also be listed as a combat zone). Since this deployment is to an area with an active war, then I argue that it is exceptional enough to be mentioned ITN. Thue | talk 18:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I was just going to say, there's a big difference between having troops deployed (i.e. stationed in bases) in, for example, Germany, and sending in a fully combat-equipped force to become decidedly involved in an ongoing armed conflict, even if it's in an advisory role. Something like that is distinctly uncommon. Swarm 18:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4-3 = consensus because the admin likes the page?are you mad? were ot eve short of updates!?!!
ad the admin chooses ot to post eve without more outright consensus.Lihaas (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is based on arguments, not counting votes. So if Tariqabjotu choose to disregard fx Chocolate Horlicks because of the answering arguments, then it is his right. Thue | talk 13:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

October 14, 2011 (2011-10-14) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Politics

Science

Apple launches the iPhone 4S

Article: iPhone 4S (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Apple launches the iPhone 4S (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: We posted some relatively minor stuff about Apple blocking sales of some unpopular tablet computers in the past. iPhone is Apple's biggest revenue generator and this launch is expected by some to be one of Apple's biggest product launches ever. Side note: how much longer until we get a featured picture on an iPhone? [23]? --Marcus Qwertyus 13:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true IMO. It was almost 100% clear that the iPad would at least be popular at its launch. It wasn't posted because many editors didn't want to post a product launch. I'm in favor of posting launches of potentially ground-breaking products but previous nominations have showed that consensus is against such items as they are seen as promotional; I wanted to nominate the Kindle Fire but didn't based on previous discussions.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It would have to be a truly exceptional new product to justify including a product-launch in the ITN - something along the lines of Ford starts selling jetpacks its alongside cars. Version X.0 of a product that has been around for years has WP:SNOW chance. Deterence Talk 18:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think people underestimate the impact of commercial technology. I'm no Apple fanboy, but the change in people's lives around the world because of smartphones like iPhone has been tremendous. The launch of the latest generation in this series is certainly more notable than the discovery of a piece of poetry or an obscure old athlete passing away. JimSukwutput 18:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed (ish), but I'm afraid I take a slightly more, well old school paternalistic view. Wikipedia has no commercial position in relation to our content per WP:NPOV. The purpose of Wikipedia, as a reference work, is presumably educational. The main body of the work is as an encyclopedia. The front page serves to attract readers to articles. Given that we have no commercial bias to promoting our work on apple phones or 14th century poets one could argue we should add more weight to obscure old athletes rather than an event that it being currently covered across numerous websites .... and to which Wikipedia will add no current value to the reader in terms of content. I'd also note, Jim, that if additional verses of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight or anything by Chaucer, let alone The Bard turned up you'd be looking rather silly with your above comments..... Pedro :  Chat  20:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stromatolite colony found in Giant's Causeway

Article: Giant's Causeway (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Scientists uncover stromatolites in the Giant's Causeway, Northern Ireland. (Post)
News source(s): [24]
Credits:

Measles and cholera break out among nearly a million Somalian refugees

Article: 2011 East Africa drought (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Torential rains have hit Mogadishu, Somalia, killing several people and causing severe damage to local refugee shelters. Measles and cholera have also broken out among more than 920,000 Somalian refugees living in refugee camps outside Somalia. (Post)
News source(s): http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/09/30/will-we-really-let-750000-people-starve-to-death
Credits:

This will be the last ITN nomination from me, hopefully for a very, very long time. I add it because there are new developments, and the story as a whole has been severely underreported relative to the human cost. - Tenebris 11:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Your report is almost a month old, and I don't see any recent news coverage to justify publishing this on ITN at this point. This news is too stale. Dragons flight (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops. I doubled the line to put two sources, one blisteringly new (about the torrential rains), but only the older contextual one showed up in the template. I removed it for clarity and replaced the other one with something two weeks old but quite a bit broader. Btw - can I point out that this very much is still a news item, even a front page news item in most parts of the world? The story may not be a clean-cut single event such as "new iPhone released", but things are still getting significantly worse, not better. After all, over 60,000 children have already died, and continue to die at a rate of about six children every minute. Is this noteworthy enough? If you want to see coverage, just type "Horn of Africa" into your average Google news search and see how much comes up -- but clear your cookies first. Google now shows you news stories according to your past preferences, so if you have not clicked on this kind of story in a while, it won't come up at all now. - Tenebris 04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Spain's credit rating downgraded

Article: European debt crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Credit rating agency Standard & Poor's cuts Spain's credit rating to AA- with a negative outlook, as the European debt crisis deepens. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/10/13/sp-axes-spains-credit-rating-on-heightened-risks-to-growth/
Credits:

For once, something that already exists on Wikipedia. Note that there should be other names in that template (eg. people who worked on the European debt crisis article), but I don't know which ones would be appropriate. Also recommend that the European debt crisis be made an ITN sticky, probably through the rest of this month at a minimum. - Tenebris 02:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I did that wrong. Here is the correct article link. - Tenebris 06:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Pending an update for the article (I don't see any as of this time.) May have to reword the blurb a bit, and I'd bold the 'European Debt Crisis' link to indicate the article in question, but I agree with this nomination as important and noteworthy for ITN. This is another big step downward for this crisis, in my view, and has serious implications for the global economy. Jusdafax 06:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The European debt crisis is the big current event, and this is a notable part of it. Thue | talk 09:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after update - The European financial crisis is significant, and this is especially interesting because of Spain's past default. Mamyles (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Clearly notable. We also posted the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating in August.--WaltCip (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The European debt crisis is notable; the downgrading of one country's debt by one specific credit agency is not. This is clearly not comparable to the U.S.'s downgrading - the U.S. debt was long seen as completely risk-free, and was also much, much larger in size than Spain's (around 14 trillion vs. 0.8 trillion). 128.151.150.1 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not very surprising given that Fitch downgraded them last week, along with Italy [25] (which we didn't post). Hut 8.5 18:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While this is obviously not as notable as the credit downgrading of the USA, this is a significant milestone in the European Debt Crisis. Of course, we'll have to be rather more selective if the domino effect kicks-in upon the European countries. Deterence Talk 18:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Hut 8.5 said, this isn't really the first case. Spain and Italy were downgraded just last week by an equally notable credit agency. And all the countries at the periphery of the Eurozone has been receiving periodical downgrades since three years ago. Remember that there are more than ten different credit ratings for each agency. S&P has around 15. If you imagine there is a "point" system, this is something like going from 12 points to 11 points, in S&P's subjective point of view. If you think of it that way, this isn't really all that exciting.
      • Yes -- and the ITN silence at that time was deafening. Maybe the real question is, how many Eurozone country downgrades does it take to equal a single United States downgrade in noteworthiness? - Tenebris 04:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
    • There's a good way to see if this is actually consequential on its own (rather than purely symbolic) - judging the stock market reactions. IBEX shows that the Spanish stock exchange actually rose slightly today. JimSukwutput 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the stockmarket is not a reliable way to judge the impact of an expected event. If the stockmarket knew it was coming (and they probably did), then the action was already priced into the stockmarket. For the same reason, you sometimes see the stockmarket rise after a company announces a yearly loss, because the stockmarket had expect the loss to be even worse, and had already priced the worse news in. Thue | talk 19:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Precisely. If it was expected (which I claim it was) then there is no or little reaction. And the fact that it is expected tells us something about its noteworthiness. Of course, there are events that are expected which deserve posting, for example if they are the culmination of a long process and we haven't yet posted anything about such a process. But that isn't the case here. This is just a small symbolic part of the general fiscal crisis in the Eurozone. JimSukwutput 01:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that it was expected by banking insiders tells us little about its noteworthiness; as you argue, unexpectedness is not really an ITN criteria. Using credit rating downgrades as reportable milestones makes sense; when else should we report a steady erosion of finances? I would say that credit ratings are a very central part of the sovereign debt crisis; the problem is unsustainable sovereign debt, and credit ratings are the way to measure them. Spain and Italy are the central countries in this crisis, because they are by far the biggest countries in trouble, and the hardest to bail out because of their size. So featuring their downgrades ITN especially makes sense. Thue | talk 01:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • (cough) Besides, many of us also saw the United States rating downgrade coming. That did not seem to get in the way of its ITN noteworthiness. - Tenebris 04:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
            • But these aren't really milestones. As I said, there are multiple credit rating agencies (3 major ones) and each one has more than 10 different possible ratings. If we post each downgrade for the major economies in crisis (Spain, Italy, Greece, and other peripheral nations in the Eurozone), that would make up half the entries on ITN. JimSukwutput 05:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree that we shouldn't post downgrades from each of the three rating agencies, and we should mostly only post for the big, significant countries. Bit I would still like to post some of them. Since we didn't post Moody's downgrade, then perhaps we can post this one. Thue | talk 20:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Usually (but not always), the first of any given kind is a psychological threshold, making it easier for others to follow suit. If a notable first is somehow missed on ITN and the notability is sustained, I would suggest that noting the next major threshold might be appropriate. By the way, several of the European Wikis have the Euro economic crisis as an ITN sticky. Considering its continuing considerable impact on stock markets worldwide and the IMF's world recessionary outlook on the same basis, the same might be appropriate here. - Tenebris 06:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.247 (talk)
                  • I'd agree with a sticky, though I think the article needs some significant improvement before we put it on the main page. For example: "there has also been a sense of unjust crisis management which mostly stems from the notion that, as a direct consequence of the financial crisis, the working population should not be held responsible for the economic mismanagement errors of economists, investors, and bankers...". The citation was a BBC News report, which said nothing of this sort and merely mentioned the grievances of a few interviewed protestors. The rest is completely made up by whoever wrote that. I have no comment on whether I agree or disagree with the assessment, but we need actual evidence before we attribute these ideas to all the disaffected populations of these countries. This may sound like nitpicking, but it's one of the many OR/NPOV problems with the article. JimSukwutput 18:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That one was a very easy fix by citing union attribution as mentioned several times within the article. If you find and point out other specific POV problems, I will tackle those too. - Tenebris 09:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.211 (talk)

Thailand and Cambodia flooding

Article: 2011 Southeast Asian floods (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 281 people in Thailand and 200 people in Cambodia are dead after the worst monsoon flooding in half a century. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/10/worst-flooding-in-decades-swamps-thailand/100168/
Credits:

Just, say, two or three more nominations after this, and then I fade back into the woodwork. I only aim here to suggest major story directions for what was looking increasingly to be a stagnant ITN section. A bit amazed that no one has nominated this story yet. - Tenebris 01:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.169 (talk)

Updated the template with the broader article, in part because I suspect both won't survive independently on English Wikipedia. - Tenebris 05:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment - two things - Please don't use a username you're not editing as, and please ensure a suitable article actually exists before you nominate stuff here. (I note you have linked to another since I typed this.) — Joseph Fox 06:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second point first, I did not understand that when I started. This is new to me, and you will notice I have been remedying. As to the first point, I don't have and will not have a Wikipedia account, for reasons you will be familiar with if you follow the main page talk page. This is the only user name I edit with. You will also see me on other article talk pages under the same name. New articles are, however, off limits to me. As a determined IP (but nevertheless not an anonymous IP), I can only correlate and improve, never create from scratch. - Tenebris 06:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
In fact, you can create from scratch - but you will be forced to use the articles for creation process. However, the sheer volume of your nominations to this page makes it a little strange to me that you would not create an account; it would certainly make backing up your nominations with articles (as is necessary for this section) a hell of a lot easier. — Joseph Fox 07:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aw man, I just welcomed the user not realizing that it was an IP address. And the user actually exists (created back in 2006), so I didn't realize it was a different user. Can we manually replace the user name with the IP address so that people don't get confused? hbdragon88 (talk) 07:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have caused confusion, Hbdragon88. Further confusion -- I too have been around Wikipedia for far too many years. (I consider it one of the Internet's most hopeful projects.) Yet further confusion -- my IP changes. (Ye Olde Dial-up, plus multiple different computers. At one point, I even overlapped with a banned user.) I do promise that if I comment on a talk page, it will always be by this name, followed by the five tildes which give time and date. I also read the relevant IP page -- but honestly, user talk pages are one of the things I don't like so much about Wikipedia.
Thank you for the information on how to create articles, Joseph Fox -- I may just take advantage of that one at some point! (But probably not soon. Currently, nearly all of my available Wiki time is spent cleaning up and expanding existing articles.) I placed my name into the template by way of accepting responsibility for the nomination, not for credit. The current volume here is simply due to my frustration at watching the ITN page stagnate for so many days, while so much is happening in the way of significant and notable news. I have never done this before, and I truly hope never to have to do this again! As to creating an account to back up a nomination -- that cuts right to the heart of why I remain a determined IP without an account. It is one of Wikipedia's principles to allow open editing in nearly all things. Given that principle, should not nominations be judged solely by content, not by whether or not the nominator has a Wikipedia account? - Tenebris 07:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Without willing to stretch this conversation out too far, I will admit I am of the opinion that those with accounts are generally more constructive and loyal to the website overall; I would wager that you, Tenebris, are among a very, very small percentage of constructive IPs on Wikipedia. The number of benefits that being a user gives you is, as you've been told, very long and most of them I believe you will find useful (for instance, receiving messages would be a hundred times easier on a fixed talk page, I'm sure, and the ability to track pages you're working on or interested in is a major plus) and, of course, the power to actually write articles is always a good one to have, especially if contributing to this page, one which often requires articles to be made from scratch. I won't lecture you any further; the work you're doing here is great, and I really, really hope that you elect to put these contributions under a handle in order to get the recognition they deserve. — Joseph Fox 10:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will reply short short then. (1) Not going to happen.<grin> (2) Some benefits are not benefits from a different pov. (3) How can you know how many IPs quietly give constructive input without detailed stats analysis? Opinions can be misleading. (4) Did you notice two IPs came out of the woodwork on this page immediately after I posted? Okay, granted, not in the most solid way, but we were all inexperienced once. Plus, this is not the easiest Wikipedia page to find from scratch! - Tenebris 08:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think 2011 Southeast Asian floods has enough prose to satisfy the content criteria yet. I split it from 2011 Thailand floods because content about flooding in other countries was lacking, and it didn't seem to make sense to have the table in an article discussing only Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ITN clock will have probably ticked out by now, despite the earlier supports. Thank you for having written up the article at all, Paul. So many of these things go by completely unseen. You did perhaps as thorough a job as is possible with reference only to English language media. - Tenebris 08:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

October 13

October 13, 2011 (2011-10-13) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

[Posted] Wedding of Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck and Jetsun Pema

Article: Wedding of Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck and Jetsun Pema (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck (pictured) and Jetsun Pema, a commoner, marry in Bhutan. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/wedding-of-bhutans-beloved-young-king-seen-as-another-step-toward-modernization/2011/10/12/gIQA2HDgfL_story.html
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Marriage of the King of Bhutan. Today's wedding has received worldwide news coverage. Largest media event in Bhutanese history. The recent royal weddings of Prince William and Catherine Middleton and Albert II and Charlene Wittstock have appeared in ITN. A posting on ITN will further improve the quality and size of the article with increased traffic. --Scanlan (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support for such reasons as ITNR, MINority topic ad precednce as we cant be POV in the interest of globalising. (eve though the first addition was a crap chpice)Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article about the wedding seems good, but I'm not sure if I like the word "commoner" in the blurb (not that I have any better, alternate suggestions either). SpencerT♦C 01:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready per ITN/R (note: I couldn't find this in the ITN/R list, could the nominator indicate where it is?). The article itself is clear and concise, which makes a nice change from most of the ITN/Rs we've seen lately. Deterence Talk 01:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks good, underrepresented area, I had heard about this young modernizing king before so maybe other reader will have too (and would be interested to hear of his marriage). Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also hope we can verify the permission for those the photo of the two of them, but if not, the king's press office already went through OTRS for File:King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck (edit).jpg. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also support cutting out the world 'commoner'. It's unnecessary and I think the blurb's fine just without it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Johnsemlak regarding the picture. A wedding picture with just the groom seems inappropriate to the point of being disrespectful. Deterence Talk 18:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the word 'commoner' may be dropped. If we have a suitable pic with the couple together, we can put that in ... but to me even otherwise, the current pic is fine: the news is after all about the King getting married - if he had married some other chick, thats still news. If Jetsun Pema married some other dude, it would not make the news (on the assumption that said dude is not a head-of-state equivalent) ... but yes, if we have a better pic with the two, then that should be posted instead of this. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listeria outbreak now second deadliest in United States history

Article: 2011 United States listeriosis outbreak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Twenty-three people have died after eating contaminated cantaloupe in the second deadliest listeria outbreak ever in the United States. (Post)
News source(s): http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/safety/story/2011-10-12/CDC-Deadliest-listeria-outbreak-in-25-years/50745862/1
Credits:
  • Tentative Support - This story seems to have further developed since the last time it was an ITN candidate.--WaltCip (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although there is an okay paragraph at Listeriosis#Recent outbreaks, I think that if this is to be posted on ITN, the outbreak would require a separate article about the specific outbreak. SpencerT♦C 01:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated. - Tenebris 06:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is not significant enough to me, and I live in the United States. I don't believe it's internationally significant, especially since the outbreak has now ended and there were no exports. Mamyles (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agreed with Mamyles. 23 people after three months is hardly significant - consider the thousands succumbing to easily curable diseases in East Africa every day. It's not even the deadliest listeria outbreak in the U.S., and the U.S. is an extraordinarily safe country when it comes to food-borne illnesses. JimSukwutput
  • Possibly disqualified. This listeriosis outbreak appeared at DYK recently. --Orlady (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Insider trader gets record sentence

Article: Raj Rajaratnam (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hedge trader Raj Rajaratnam has been sentenced to 11 years in jail, the longest sentence ever handed out for insider trading. (Post)
News source(s): http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/rajaratnam-is-sentenced-to-11-years/?google_editors_picks=true
Credits:
Updated with a couple of extra sentences, including the other sentences in the case. - Tenebris 11:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.129 (talk)

Tuberculosis cases decline

Article: Tuberculosis#Epidemiology (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After peaking at 9 million cases, the worldwide incidence of tuberculosis, the world's second deadliest infectious disease, declines for the first time in two decades. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40007&Cr=tuberculosis&Cr1=
Credits:

Updated the article and fixed the link. - Tenebris 06:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, United States declares bankruptcy

Article: Harrisburg,_Pennsylvania#2009-2011_Budget_Crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Harrisburg, Pennsylvania becomes the first United States state capital to declare bankrupcty after the foreclosure crisis of 2007. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/harrisburg-pa-declares-bankruptcy/2011/10/13/gIQA3ieqhL_video.html
Credits:

I don't normally do this, but the global news has been much more intense than it would seem by the ITN section. So I will add a few stories, both from the anglosphere and around the world, let the consensus go as it will. Please forgive if I slip up on the template structure -- somewhat new at this. - Tenebris 19:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

  • You left in another user's signature with your copy and paste. I fixed it. JimSukwutput 20:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. (And for future reference -- where was it?) - Tenebris 20:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.239 (talk)
  • Oppose when local governments in the US enter receivership, they are run financially by a federal Judge, which is very rarely substantially different than how they were being run, except for some layoffs and extra work for those who remain. Dualus (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, just a single brief comment. As a simple civic bankruptcy, this is not an exceptional story. Symbolically, however, the fact that Harrisburg happens to be a United States state capital crosses a significant line. There won't be an equivalent bankruptcy moment until a world-class city or an entire state or country goes bankrupt, if one does at all. (I would say keep an eye on Greece, but WP:CRYSTAL.) - Tenebris 21:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.239 (talk)
  • How often does something like this occur? It didn't show up on the front page on Drudge (and before you berate me for using that as a news source, the primary reason I use it is as a litmus test on how sensational a news story is).--WaltCip (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to add article (Harrisburg subsection) link. An (I suspect) incomplete list of United States cities which have gone bankrupt is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Government_units_that_have_filed_for_Chapter_9_bankruptcy . - Tenebris 06:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

[Posted] Dennis Ritchie

Article: Dennis Ritchie (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dennis Ritchie, creator of UNIX and designer of the C programming language, dies at 70. (Post)
News source(s): http://boingboing.net/2011/10/12/dennis-ritchie-1941-2011-computer-scientist-unix-co-creator-c-co-inventor.html
Credits:

 --emijrp (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as a user of UNIX and C.. GreyHood Talk 11:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support His contribution to the computing world is enormous. --Specific Generalist (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Old man dies of old age" isn't exactly striking. Very limited interest subject, and something akin to the death of Al Davis earlier this week. That notable people occasionally die is not remarkable in and of itself. Resolute 13:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any "Old man dies of old age" entries. Even though I have personally read The C Programming Language. Perhaps we should have a single line in the ITN box, showing only 3 names of the 3 most recent deaths? Thue | talk 13:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see the WP:ITN/R entry for this.--WaltCip (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If you had to make a list of the ten most influential computer programmers Ritchie would surely be on that list. Although most sources credit Unix primarily to Thompson there is no doubt as to Ritchie's contribution to it and yes he was the main player for C. This is a figure who created what is still a maajor programming language. Newer languages deliberately copy much of C (C++, Java, PHP etc): if you include those Ritchie-influenced languages account for well over 90% of current software development. He was instrumental in building a research operating system that was the first to showcase many new ideas and is still a major player over 40 years after its first release. He is LILP listed, and all this more than meets the second death criteria for posting. As for the comments that computer science is a narrow, fringe field: I doubt it is as fringe as suggested, and in any case that is not a criteria. If it was we wouldn't post anyone except popstars, actors and politicians. Where was this argument when we posted Steve Jobs? In the long term Ritchie's contribution will doubtless be assessed as much greater. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak oppose, fairly notable in his field, but his work was rather niche and his death rather underwhelming. — Joseph Fox 14:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per Crispmucher. Though the death was due to old age, while alive, he was one of the most notable and respected computer programmers. Lynch7 14:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support perhaps being in computer field i'm biased but C is basically the building block of computers as we know it so he is definitly one of the most notable people in his field of exptertise. He may not generate the amount of media frenzy that Steve Jobs did but that might be one of the reason he is better suited for ITN. -- Ashish-g55 14:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As mentioned above, C is the building blocks of modern computers. Every system, including Linux, Windows, and Mac, primarily uses C. While his death isn't surprising, it is notable enough to be mentioned. Mamyles (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Contributing to the creation of C programming language, that marked a revolution in the computer science, is a very big deal. Probably not everyone has heard about him, but C with its upgrades is something scattered deeply in the other circles of knowledge.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support given the huge influence of C and Unix. Hut 8.5 15:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Systemic bias at work. Jenks24 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Crispmuncher. One of the few natural deaths that are actually worth posting. JimSukwutput 15:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Think on the answer from the viewpoint of a reader. Odds are that only a tiny minority will have any idea who he is, and this is a guy whose death will be front page news absolutely nowhere. Resolute 15:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose someone above made an "apples to oranges" comparison to Al Davis above. But let's compare to Steve Jobs as both are "tech guys." Jobs' death caused a pretty big public reaction and was news everywhere. Ritchie's hasn't and isn't getting much coverage. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as while a significant person to the tech field, dying of old age is not necessary newsworthy unless he was a much more significant public figure. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is very minimal, a start class. The death is not mentioned beyond the date. Not postable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that myself. It is possibly a bit light on personal life but ultimately that is not of interest to most readers. The article is a good summary of what he is actually known for. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support A creator of the most widely used computer language of the last 50 years and Unix, widely used in may forms for decades. Far more worthy than Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (when he dies) Torqueing (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the importance of an invention is not necessarily in proportion to biographical significance of the inventor. This is one of the cases where that lack of correlation means that the death of the individual is simply not a major news story. Kevin McE (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree he qualifies as a significant figure in the field, but the article is currently in bad shape, barely more than a stub nothing much about his death, and half the article sources are to an unencyclopedic "quotes" section. This article needs to gets fixed before posting in ITN. Secret account 17:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Creator of the C language and co-creator of Unix, the lingua franca of computing. A computing pioneer, his influence is hard to overstate. -Halo (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kevin. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I was really on the fence with this one, but Kevin makes an important point. Swarm 19:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unix and C are seriously big deals in computing. Unix is the basis for the Mac, iPhone, Android as well as every Linux/Unix server in the business world (yes Linux isn't technically descended from Unix, but it uses the same ideas) - and C is one of the most influential programming languages in existence and it runs on almost every platform and other languages such as Java, C++ C# and Objective C - which, along with C, are used by a huge percentage of the worlds applications are descended from C.
  • With regards to Kevin's comment I thought ITN wasn't a breaking news service - but for those people who are fans of that idea I saw it posted on the BBC. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider he second story on the Technology page, behind announcement if the date in 12 months time on which analogue TV broadcasting will finish in N Ireland, to be evidence of a major news story. Kevin McE (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the second story - I saw it linked on the front page of the BBC's website. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse me of lying. On the list of stories on the BBC technology page, it was second. Kevin McE (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably we looked at the page at different times and/or are from different places - the BBC changes its content regularly. Stating that I saw it linked from the front page does not mean that you were lying to advance your case - and not what I was saying at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "It wasn't the second story" after I had said that it was is accusing me of lying. Kevin McE (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for missing out the words "for me" from my statement. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As above, only if you want proof that it is lower news priority that the switch off date for Northern Ireland's analogue TV signal (24 October next year, fwiw) Kevin McE (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the whole point of ITN was to cover news stories that haven't made as many global headlines. That I'm sure was the argument trotted out (probably by the same people who opposed this) when Amanda Knox was released from jail and made the front page of every news source in the world and got over 1.5 million views as it has been with every high profile event in the past. There is no reason ITN can't post high profile events like Amanda Knox' release from jail or Jobs' death, but if people are going to argue against them using the argument that coverage doesn't matter to turn around and say its super important for something else is poor form. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--people saying that Richie is more significant than Jobs need to take a step back I think. I'm not opposing on notability grounds but the notion that 'Jobs was posted, and this guy was more significant' doesn't work for me. Leaving out two key factors--Jobs' role in creating Pixar and the fact that he died just after the pinnacle of his career--Jobs was able to take all the bits and parts and made them into devices which influenced people's lives. He changed how people listen to music; he changed how people interface their computers, not to mention his impact on the animated film industry. His influence extends beyond the tech world into music, film, design, and people's lifestyles. I am not an apple fanboy--I've owned 6 mp3 players and not one Ipod; I've never owned a Mac or an Iphone. But I recognize the guy's influence. Again I'm not opposing on notability grounds; just saying that Jobs was more significant. I do oppose on article quality and update for the moment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly that argument seem not to appreciate Ritchie's achievements and contributions. OS X is derived from a system Ritchie created. The firmware of all Apple products are written in a language created by Ritchie or derived from it, as is Windows, MS Office etc. Jobs by his very nature was more high profile but at the end of the day his contribution was telling engineers what to make, and marketroids how to sell what had been made: his technical contributions were nil. Ritchie did not become a household name but that is not reason to underestimate his contribution: from a purely technical standpoint his contributions to Apple's own products was far greater than Jobs's ever was despite never having worked there. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
'Telling engineers what to make' is a lot more important than you're conceding, IMHO.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure and Jobs was an extremely good manager. But still. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not updated. The update is entirely unnotable specifics of his death, and a ridiculous line His death, which came a week after the death of Steve Jobs, did not receive as much media coverage. The update needs to contain substantial information beyond what the blurb would contain. If there's nothing to add, then perhaps it shouldn't be posted. I agree that there is a rough consensus here that he's notable enough but I recommend the 'ready' tag be removed until there's a suitable update.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the article reads like it was written by his mother. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Token Oppose I know this is unlikely to change anything, but this discussion here shows how out of touch Wikipedians are. Yeah, maybe in the computer-saavy, nerdy bubble in which Wikipedia and Wikipedians reside, this guy and his innovations were earth-shattering, but the vast majority of people don't even know what C is, let alone who this guy is. C may be an important advancement in computer science, but Dennis Richie is not particularly notable on his own; after all, look at the size and nature of his article. I feel so strongly in this regard that I refuse to put this up on ITN myself. -- tariqabjotu 20:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think his obituary was the most-read article on the New York Times the day he died, so he wasn't that obscure. Also, IMO we should discriminate between people like pop stars, who are just famous, and people who actually made a major technical contribution to society but are less famous. Thue | talk 22:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite. We need to be clear regarding the distinction between celebrity and notability - the former is not a consideration but the latter certainly is. In the case of pop stars, actors and even things like politics it is impossible to be successful without attracting fame and celebrity. In most other walks of life you can rise to the very top of that field and still remain fairly anonymous if that is what you choose, or you can choose a more media-facing role and gain a higher profile. Not choosing the latter path does not equate to a lack of notability. You only need to look at the number of comments on this story to gauge the level of interest: few stories gain so much interest. That itself is a demonstration of notability.
        I also question why Tariq felt the need to post this comment as to why he was not posting the story. Admins are volunteers and ultimately have not duty to do anything. However, to post a comment to the effect of "I can see the consensus on this one, but I don't like it and am not going to post it" strikes me as a bad attitude. If that's the way you feel you comment as a user or you shut up about the issue. You don't do something like that which could easily influence the next admin to come along. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Posted Clearly there aren't enough admins who monitor this page, and if his obituary was so well-read, okay, sure... -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

October 12, 2011 (2011-10-12) (Wednesday)
Arts and culture

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] Black Death genetic code 'built'

Article: Black Death (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Scientists reconstruct the DNA of the germ that caused the Black Death in the 14th century. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating
Interesting, but is this all that novel for non-forensic biology? Saying "Black Death" will get you a nice headline, but I'm wondering if there will be any impact to this for future studies. NW (Talk) 04:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The research appears to have led to some notable conclusions--that the germ is the same as that that causes the plague today, and that agent is distinct from that of previous outbreaks of the plague.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Points of notability -
1) That it *is* the same virus. That was a matter of considerable debate, given how different many of the symptoms were. (The Black Death article had previously made some note of this.)
2) The differences between the current versions and the "Black Death" versions open major research doors into what makes a virus particularly virulent, which is relevant across a wide, wide range of research. Those concerned with future influenza pandemics have a particular interest.
3) This finding also opens up research directions into why the Black Death ended at all (ie. co-interactions/evolutionary arms race with human immune systems) -- highly relevant wrt ebolas and such, especially given modern speeds of transportation/transmission.
- Tenebris 09:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.77 (talk)
It's a bacterium, not a virus. Dragons flight (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand appropriately corrected. Blame the lack of sleep. - Tenebris 08:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.129 (talk)
Ready to post, however, does anyone feel there should be more words linked in the blurb? I'd also prefer a slightly longer update in the article, the 2011 update has just one sentence. --Tone 14:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment - where's the update? Or are the two lines at the bottom of the DNA section all we have? — Joseph Fox 14:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ITN consensus is generally that scientific discoveries be posted when they're peer reviewed, not when they're first reported.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Finucane apology

Article: Pat Finucane (solicitor) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UK government apologises for state collusion in the 1989 murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane (Post)
News source(s): [28] [29]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The collusion has been acknowledged for some time, but this is a big development in a slow-burning story. --FormerIP (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't updated to reflect it, but Cameron and the NI Secretary Pattison both issued apologies, which is something the previous Government declined to do - see the newslinks posted above. The family's unhappiness with the proposed review is another aspect to the story, but it is not the one I'm proposing here. --FormerIP (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, article updated. --FormerIP (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is that the reliable sources are almost exclusively focused on the government's "change of mind" to not hold a new enquiry, rather than the apology: [30], [31], [32]. Focusing on the apology in ITN runs the risk of distorting what our reliable sources say is the newsworthy part of this, and thus appearing to be biased in favour of the UK Government. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take that point, but "family rejects UK government proposals" could equally be seen as biased against the UK government. Does what you're saying add up to "oppose", "neutral" or "change blurb"? --FormerIP (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it adds up to anything, I'm sorry! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a loose, broad suggestion, I would propose that apologies -- even for major inquiries -- be entirely avoided in ITN unless they have global and future implications. There are simply too many of them otherwise. (I would propose the same for all national election results and fallen governments [see below], but that might provoke screaming.) - Tenebris 09:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid

Article: Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Mohamad Anas Haitham Soueid is indicted in the United States on charges of spying for the Syrian government. (Post)
News source(s): [33] [34]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Related to ongoing 2011 Syrian uprising. Neutralitytalk 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I don't see this being significant in the long-run, even in Syria. It might have been a notable event in other times, but there's a lot of stuff going on in Syria right now, and this is only a small part of it. JimSukwutput 20:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Indictments are cheap, even in the US of A. Not even sure if its newsworthy if the guy gets convicted, but that's a ways off, if ever. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious oppose. I dont actually see how this is newsworthy. The USA being a very famous country for its special government and government-related secrets and does have some eyes on it. (especially from the east) Indictments (i guess) are quite common in the USA (There have been quite a lot of movies like that. haha!) --Anirudh Emani (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These last two comments are pure silliness, and simply uninformed. Indictments for espionage are not "common." It is extremely rare that someone is charged with espionage for a foreign power. (I'm not sure how many people have been charged with spying for Syria in the U.S. - perhaps a handful in the past few decades, no more). And the story relates to many ongoing international events and news themes: 2011 Syrian uprising; human rights in Syria; Syria-United States relations; Arab Spring, and espionage. Of course this is newsworthy; that's why the world press has covered this extensively.
It's plausible to argue that this isn't in the "top five most important stories." I'm fine with that. But don't claim that it's "not newsworthy," because that's obviously wrong and belied by the reporting on it in publications across the world. Neutralitytalk 17:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are not uninformed - indeed, it's your comment that reads like a regurgitation of what the US govt would have liked to brainwash all to believe... A little education, neut: Indictments in the US are handed down by grand juries at the behest of prosecutors acting behind closed doors with a grand jury sworn to secrecy. Only the most minimal proof is required, which is usually presented by the investigating officers and may include hearsay, conjecture, opinion, and any sort of imaginings of the officer. The defendant is usually unaware of the proceedings and certainly has no access to the proceedings or to have a lawyer present, to call witnesses, to present evidence of any kind whatsoever, to cross-examine or even to address the grand jury; certainly nothing like a conviction in open court with a jury of one's peers. If you think indictments are so big, just remember the ex-IMF chief whose US indictment was tossed out within a short time, once some of the evidence saw the light of day. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear you want to argue about politics. I'm not interested. None of what you said has any bearing on what ITN is about. You might want to review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (i.e., a forum).
You bring up the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case - hilariously, that exact story was featured on ITN on May 15 2011. And we've posted ITN stories about the same exact thing (espionage indictments): the Russian Illegals Program was featured on 9 July 2010. Neutralitytalk 00:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutrality, while you are correct in pointing out that Wikipedia is "not a forum", what Carlossuarez46 is saying is perfectly correct: federal indictments are handed out like free candy at Willy Wonka's with scant regard to the principles of natural justice. Let's wait until some actual evidence is brought to light before we run this guy's name through the media gauntlet. Deterence Talk 01:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Espionage indictments don't come every day. They are actually exceedingly rare. And everything we're saying, and that's in the article, has been reported in many thousands of news articles. We're not making any conclusions and we're using terms like allegedly to signify that these are preliminary claims. That's irrelevant to the actual question we should be addressing, which is "are these highly newsworthy allegations?" And clearly, based on the news coverage and how this article fits into the larger picture (2011 Syrian uprising, Arab Spring), they are. As I mentioned above, we've run notable arrests/criminal charges before, including Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the Russian spy ring, on ITN! Look, a reasonable case can be made that this isn't in the "top two or three" most significant stories right now, although clearly I think it's in the top 10 or so. (I think this is Jim Sukwutput's position). But I can't see how "running this guy's name through the media gauntlet" should play into our decision. The news is already out there and I think the only three things we should be considering are (1) the quality of our article (good); (2) the newsworthiness of the story (evident by the significant global press coverage) and (3) how does it fit in in terms of ITN topic balance (I think pretty well, as it's an international story, is interesting, fits in with ongoing themes/events). Neutralitytalk 04:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we posted the DSK indictment despite a lack of consensus then and now whether we should have done. Making future mistakes because we made earlier is part of learning; apparently some people never learn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

October 11, 2011 (2011-10-11) (Tuesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations
  • The Cabinet of Israel approves a prisoner swap deal with Hamas for the release of the Israeli Army soldier Gilad Shalit, who had been held in captivity for five years. In exchange, Israel agrees to release a thousand Palestinian prisoners held in Israel, among them hundreds of prisoners serving multiple life sentences for planning and perpetrating murderous attacks against Israeli civilians.(Xinhuanet) (Ynet)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

[Posted] Slovak govt fall

Article: Slovak parliamentary election, 2012 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Slovak after Prime Minister Iveta Radičová's government falls after failing a no confidence vote over the European Financial Stability Fund. (Post)
News source(s): [35][36]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Pretty big considering its ramifications for eurozone stability Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as I understand, the Slovak government has lost a confidence vote, which it will probably win when re-tabled tomorrow. If things don't pan out like that, then we may have an ITN-worthy news story. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to RS sources support for the motion depends on the call for a new election which would mean it falls. But im all for waiting till tomorrow then.Lihaas (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"By the end of the week", according to the Guardian article linked to above. --FormerIP (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And: [37]. Maybe the item can still be posted, but with a new blurb. --FormerIP (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the best idea is to highlight the article about last year's election. I'd prefer updating the PM's article or the one about the cabinet, if there's one. Otherwise, support. --Tone 07:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The untimely fall of a European government as a direct result of the current European sovereign debt crisis has got to be notable. But, the section in the article needs some work. For instance, the first sentence says "parliament voted to approve the expansion of the European Financial Stability Fund", but, I think it was supposed to say "parliament voted against the expansion of the European Financial Stability Fund". Deterence Talk 08:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
they voted for it, but it does metion th emotion failed.Lihaas (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, also true that the blocking of the EFSF would be ITN-worthy in its own right. --FormerIP (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Fall of a government based on a refuse of a fund related to the Eurozone is a very big deal, that marks the dependence of the politics in the European Union with the current financial situation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See above and this story [38]. The Slovak government has not fallen. --FormerIP (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, but then the blurb should be slightly reworded. The 'no confidence vote' is very important, while the first part leads to different thoughts.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This also means that it'll be a news if the government falls tomorrow. Until then it's only a strong precedence caused by the financial instability. The update on the page about the most recent parliamentary election in the country should also be fixed, changing the header that already states the 'fall'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like the bailout is expected to pass anyway (judging from the stock market reactions today). The government before the no confidence motion was made up of a coalition of centre-right parties, while there is a single large centre-left party in opposition. It appears that some of the more fiscally right-wing parties in the government allied with the opposition to abstain from the motion, leading to the government's fall, but the centre-left party actually supports the bailout in principle. What's most likely to happen is a compromise between the moderate centre-right and the centre-left, resulting in a new "grand coalition". JimSukwutput 20:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. And you accuse me of soapboxing... Deterence Talk 22:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soapboxing? Do you even understand what that term means? Did I ever make a statement regarding my political stance or opinion? Every statement I made was factual analysis based on actual news reports; I was merely summing things up and providing a much-needed update on the situation. Read a couple of news articles (for once) if you don't believe me.
I'm not interested in getting into a debate over your previous misconduct on ITN. It suffices to say that the several warnings you have received from admins should have made you modify your behavior and I am disappointed that you still do not recognize your disruptive behavior in the past. But that is frankly none of my business, and certainly irrelevant to this nomination. If you wish to talk about previous "accusations", please take it to my talk page. JimSukwutput 00:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the BBC source above the bailout measure will pass BUT per the caveat i said above. Reading the article it says snap elections have been called and due in March. so the govt HAS FALLED. "In return for his support, Ms Radicova's coalition agreed to hold snap elections on 10 March, one of her ministers, Mikulas Dzurinda, confirmed." Think its ready for posting then...Lihaas (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No!!! Early elections is not the same as a government falling. I feel like my IQ has gone down even having to post this message! --FormerIP (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reword to snap election?
It gets the requisite support per aboveLihaas (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a couldabeen story. --FormerIP (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COULDABEEN what? it is. Not a regular election as failed a on confidence vote, thats fallen
There is no "GRAND COALITION" the agreement stipulates dissolution following debate aNd passing off the bill (expected probs tomorrow)Lihaas (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couldabeen the fall of a government, couldabeen the blocking of the Euro bailout. Either of those things would have been ITN worthy. Early elections in Slovakia is not. --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a coulabeen fall because parliament will be dissolved. it WILL thats agreed, ot speculatio. there is o new govt forming and its an early election FALLENLihaas (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A new election being called as a result of the incumbent government failing a confidence vote in the House = the government has fallen. Deterence Talk 03:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we usually post successful votes of no confidence (or unsuccessful votes of confidence, like this case)? I thought we waited for the election itself. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsuccessful votes of no confidence are routine and will happen numerous times in each Democratically-elected governments' term. But, successful votes of no confidence are rare and noteworthy. Deterence Talk 05:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, precedence doe indicate the publishing of failure of govt a nd new elections. we did it for portuagal some 6 mths ago.Lihaas (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Slovenia 3 weeks ago. But the article needs a better update and we have to decide what to say about the EFSF. --Tone 08:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay then. And I didn't say this was an unsuccessufl vote of no confidence. This was an unsuccessful vote of confidence. It was a motion brought by the government to assess its parliamentary support with the intention showcasing strength (like the one that just happened in Italy), not a motion brought by the opposition with the intention of bringing down the government. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For FormerIP]s falling IQ that he hefelt. fgoverment falls
Re-reword blurb. can someone mark ready>?Lihaas (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Embassy attack foiled

Article: Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An alleged terror plot on the Saudi embassy in Washington is foiled (Post)
News source(s): ABC news
Credits:

Nominator's comments: this is a developing story, press conference upcoming Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, apparently the arrested plotters are Iranian agents [40] Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article that contains this info? Without an article there's nothing to post.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if there is an article to link to - Major news. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose At this stage, the reports are woefully short on verifiable details and the allegations are little more than vaguely-worded clichés. We'll need a little bit more than yet another daily-dose of anti-Iranian rhetoric from the White House before this deserves a place in ITN. Deterence Talk 20:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a major event and if the intelligence collected is accurate, this could have been a major catastrophe. I have taken the liberty of creating an article, so please, add what is needed. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just the fact that the US is accusing the Iranian government of trying to attack Saudi embassador is notable enough in itself. If it happens to be true, then that is just icing on the cake :). But the article need a good deal more "according to" hedging given that the US is not the most unbiased source (remember weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!). Thue | talk 22:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because this is a big news story, but there should be very clear hedging not only in the article but also in the ITN blurb. --FormerIP (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Also, the article is in dire shape. I did a preliminary pass, but it needs the attention of someone who has far more time than I. NW (Talk) 00:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we post a blurb without a link to the new article in the short term so people looking for information on the Quds Force or the Saudi ambassador will have a place to go? Then we can change the blurb once the new article is ready. I think this would be a good use of ITN because this thing is all over the news and a lot of people will be coming to Wikipedia for background information on Iran and terrorism. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But rewrite the blurb. It isn't very good. WikifanBe nice 04:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed blurb: "The U.S. government states that it has foiled a Iranian-backed plot to assasinate Saudi ambassador Adel al-Jubeir in Washington, D.C." Any objections to putting it up? Better blurbs would be apopreciated, as always. NW (Talk) 14:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer that to mine. I'd add the Israeli embassy to the blurb though. The article seems in decent enough shape to post Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted with your proposed tweak. The blurb is a big long though. NW (Talk) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, could we post a picture of the ambassador? Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The picture found on the article is missing permissions, so we don't know whether or not it's free use.--WaltCip (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mentioning "Iran-backed attack" in the blurb is highly controversial, and I therefore suggest an immediate change. The background of the attack is only speculation with no firm proves, and it couldn't be classified a news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AGREE TO PULL/REWORD the article is utter rot! (ad there are much better current articles not posted despite support thas stronger)Lihaas (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that "Iranian-backed" should be removed. It is indeed speculation and the blurb is perfectly good without it. Also the bit about embassies - according to the BBC, this is supposed to have been a "first-draft" plan before the idea of targeting the ambassador emerged. --FormerIP (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on changing the blurb or pulling. Poor article, biased blurb, dubious event (or non-event). GreyHood Talk 17:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to be the voice of dissent here, but the US government did in fact state that it was Iranian backed, and the fact that they stated this is what makes it notable in my opinion. I say leave it the way it is...it's not saying it was Iranian backed, it's saying the US government said it was. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get what you're saying, but the blurb isn't clear about that and think it would be difficult to make it clear without occupying the whole of the ITN box. --FormerIP (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps add "allegedly" before Iranian backed? That's the best solution I can think of. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked as suggested, though I have my reservations as to whether it was necessary or not. The blurb is way too long now though, and really was even before this. NW (Talk) 18:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you could take out the part about embassies as suggested above. --FormerIP (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems better, but also might lead to a POV. Frankly, we have a blurb with United States blaming Iran for plotting terrorist attack. On the other hand, a section of the key article in the blurb is tagged with POV template. I doubt many of our readers would like to alight on another dispute, rather than read the truth.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pull the article has two orange tags which need fixing before it is posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled for the time being. A disputed tag at the top of the article is not appropriate for main page. When this is fixed, we can put it back. --Tone 21:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repost "allegedly"? "POV"? What is the POV? That this plot was a CIA hoax? Come on folks. This act of war is notable and of interest to our readers and not even Ahmedinejad is denying it. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    His government, including aides to Ahmadinejad, have denied that there was any such plot. (How much credibility those denials have is a different matter, but they certainly aren't admitting to the plot.) Dragons flight (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose reposting. How low have our standards fallen when sentences like this are put on the main page to be read by millions? "This has been considered an attempted terrorist plot, or perhaps by some, such as Senator Carl Levin, even an act of war, if indeed it was sponsored by the Iranian government as some have claimed it was." JimSukwutput 00:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tags appear to have been resolved NPOV wise, and if no one objects I will repost this in 20 minutes. In the meantime I will attempt to fix that sentence mentioned by Jim. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I have fixed that sentence now. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The tag was not resolved; it was removed arbitrarily by a user, put back on, and removed again. Chances are it's likely to be put on again (no comment on whether it is justified). The horribly written sentence wasn't my only objection either - the article right now is under several edit conflicts with many users putting up uncited or unverifiable (OR) statements, which is common for hot topics like this. I do not understand why we cannot wait until we have a well-cited, well-written article with verifiable details before posting this. We're not responsible for breaking news. JimSukwutput 00:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Taking a look at the page history, I see your concerns about page stability, and that's enough to convince me to not repost at the moment. I'm just somewhat concerned that while we wait for it to become stable/"better" it will go stale, as well as how good we should consider "good enough"...it's not like it will be a GA within the time we could post it on ITN or anything. I will say though that for a current event article it seems to be fine otherwise (well cited, reasonably good prose, not wanting for updates, etc). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not that concerned about it going stale. My opinion is that if we cannot have a well-cited, neutral article going on the main page, then it's better for it not to go on the main page at all. The article has little information, and what little it has is mostly speculative and original research, which the author of the article has managed to retain through revert warring against half a dozen other users.JimSukwutput 00:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to waltz over and leave a "let's all just calm down here..." message but it appears he has been blocked. Hopefully others will clean up the article now and it'll get in shape for posting. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but you cant use past consesus on a new state of aticle. we dint do so for bolivia protests or the above slovak changed.Lihaas (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that if you post every foiled plot on ITN, even limiting it to potentially significant actions (WP:CRYSTAL), you will have thousands of ITN blurbs each year? Nor has the number really risen -- quite steady for years, decades, possibly even centuries. (Compared to some histories, we live in very stable times.) These things used to go below the viewer radar. Now a very big deal is made of each, but only when they fit a particular template. (Do I really have to say what that template looks like?) - Tenebris 09:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.77 (talk)

Can you point to any other foiled state-sponsored terror attacks in the last year? I don't think they are that common. 87.63.85.30 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For openly available (non-classified) material, try starting with this FBI report for 2002-2005. Although they include arsons and such, note the number of domestic bombings and prevented bombings you never heard about on the news. http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005 - Tenebris 19:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.239 (talk)
Looking at the list at the bottom, I don't see many state-sponsored attacks at all. I supported this blurb above because of the influence on interstate relations. Thue | talk 21:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. We have already gone from "any" to (not) "many". And of course, the way this particular foiled plot has been presented in the media and on the world stage has nothing whatsoever to do with next year being a major domestic election year. - Tenebris 21:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.239 (talk)
The "not many" was just because I was too lazy to actually read the whole list. Of the part I read, I couldn't find any. Can you point to any. Not to mention that that list covers 25 years, so even if they are "not many", they can still be called rare enough to post ITN. Thue | talk 22:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Atilla Altıkat won't even be on that list. The Justice Commandos Against Armenian Genocide had a habit of targetting diplomatic personnel around the world (including inside the United States), successfully more often than not. You could consider the JCAG the equivalent of Ireland's IRA, even to the point of having a simultaneous political wing (Armenian Revolutionary Federation). An unsuccessful assassination plot against Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (you might know him better as the former Shah of Iran) was attempted by agents of the Soviet Union -- about as state-sponsored as it gets. Some truly interesting news has just emerged about just who was behind the assassination of Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana, which led directly to the deaths of some million people. (Debating whether it is solid enough yet to nominate for ITN above.) Those are just some of the most high profile state-linked assassination attempts within the past three decades. ... And we won't even go into just how many documented state-sponsored attempts there were to assassinate Fidel Castro. (Or don't those count?) - Tenebris 02:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The attempts on Castro do count. I just think that all of the attempts you mention were notable to feature ITN. Thue | talk 09:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although, interestingly, even though a few of them overlapped the existence of ITN, they were never once seen as notable enough even to mention here. The advocates of this one, on the other hand, are so determined to have it up that I am starting to get dizzy from the post-pull-post-pull. Oh, how I wish we could occasionally raise our eyes from partisan politics and close our ears to pundits! (Btw in his speech about the non-incident, Obama carefully did not say that it was state-sponsored.) - Tenebris 10:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.129 (talk)
  • Oppose re-posting per above. Rm [Ready] mark. GreyHood Talk 11:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article hasn't changed much since the author was blocked. JimSukwutput 14:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In removing reference to alleged state-sponsored terrorism, the significance of this event is not represented in the blurb. This isn't significant simply because an attack was foiled, but that the United States accuses Iran. Perhaps the blurb could be reposted as something like "The United States accuses Iran of supporting a foiled plot to attack the Saudi Embassy in Washington", which would maintain neutral POV while justifying significance. This is a sweeping world event that should not be ignored by ITN. Mamyles (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actions speak more than words. Statements of condemnation are issued all the time by ambassadors of countries. They're generally inconsequential until a formal declaration of war actually occurs.--WaltCip (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This event cannot be generalized with other condemnations - it has already resulted in sanctions by the United States, and Saudi Arabia is considering severing diplomatic ties. If war is declared that would warrant another, separate ITN blurb. Mamyles (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And again - more sanctions? Really? Do you have any idea how many U.S. sanctions against Iran already existed before? The sum total of the new sanctions is that United States citizens are prohibitted from engaging in transactions with the specific five people who have been designated as involved in the plot. In addition, their assets are frozen. That is it! (To be exact, it builds upon the pre-existing Executive Order 13224, not anything new.) As to Saudi Arabia cutting off diplomatic ties - note that it has not actually done so. - Tenebris 10:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.129 (talk)

[Posted] Ukraine ex-PM Yulia Tymoshenko jailed

Article: Yulia Tymoshenko (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko is jailed for 7 years over the abuse of office when brokering the 2009 gas deal with Russia. (Post)
News source(s): [41]
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We have discussed her arrest in August and agreed to wait until the end of the trial. GreyHood Talk 11:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember commenting on this in August. Some very analytical, incisive, constructive and relevant comments. That apart Support, its an ex-PM getting convicted and jailed. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. Photo can be added as well. --Tone 14:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we swap out the photo? The microphone and the finger on her lips are both a bit unusual. A crop of File:GeorgeBush-Juliia Tymoshenko (2008)-Ukraine.JPG might work better I think. NW (Talk) 14:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This one [42] would be better too. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that File:Yulia Tymoshenko, 2010.JPG would be better. I've included it on the right, though someone might like to crop it a bit too. (oh and post-posting support) Modest Genius talk 15:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks boring. GreyHood Talk 15:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do all of her photos look like casting promos for Star Trek? Nightw 16:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it is a kind of ethnic Russian/Ukrainian hairstyle, which might just have been borrowed to Star Trek like kokoshnik for Star Wars. And Tymoshenko's plait is a popular source for jokes in Russia/Ukraine. The most recent one is that now a classic riddle "What is a girl in jail, her plait outside free?" (Сидит девица в темнице, а коса на улице?) answers not only carrot :) GreyHood Talk 16:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just nit-picking but I agree with Greyhood. The former picture is a much more interesting photo. Notwithstanding the blase feel of the current one but the microphone and finger aren't "unusual". It's a picture of Tyomoshenko reacting at the trial. That makes it's already eye-catching light, angle and posture even more interesting. And for journalistic purposes, it fits directly with the blurb. Kind of like this beauty. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MENA Sticky

Article: Arab Spring (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ sticky (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Time to sticky again. Libya finishing, Yemen prominence with Karman and Saleh talk of stepping down, Saudi stepping up, Bahrain continous, Syria ongoing, Egypt hotting up and Tunisia violence contiues (with elections approaching) Lihaas (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - We've posted maybe two Arab Spring-related stories in the past month; a sticky just isn't needed. If we're overwhelmed by these stories like we have been in the past, we can then consider it. Swarm 03:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What significant new events are there that justify a sticky? The point in using stickies is so that we don't have a constant stream of normal ITN blurbs on the same topic. Nothing on this topic has even been nominated recently. Modest Genius talk 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh ... what you really mean is that fifty-odd people being killed a day in various Arab Spring-related protests is no longer United States front page news, now that the primaries are slowly gearing up. The stories are still most definitely there, and have been every single day. If you want to find them, just clear your cookies and cache (Google algorithms like to show you only the kinds of things you normally look for), then go to Google News and type in your choice of Syria, Tunesia, Egypt (very tense situation there re Israeli-Egypt treaty, one of only two Israel has with the Arabic world), or Yemen. For the others, you have to search a little more, but they are there. - Tenebris 19:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A "sticky" isn't a measure of how important we judge something to be. As Modest Genius said, it's just so that we don't have to constantly posting new blurbs on the same topic (which is not currently an issue). With so many things apparently happening, I would urge Lihaas (and you) to nominate Arab Spring-related events individually for consideration. After all, they certainly won't get posted if nobody nominates them in the first place. Regards, Swarm 19:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

October 10, 2011 (2011-10-10) (Monday)
Arts and culture

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

Anthony Calvillo becomes all-time passing yards leader in football

Article: Anthony Calvillo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Anthony Calvillo of the Montreal Alouettes becomes the all-time passing yards leader in professional football league history. (Post)
News source(s): [43]
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: this probably has a snowball's chance in hell, but I thought I would nominate it regardless. This record encompasses both the NFL and the CFL and is a major accomplishment for any quarterback. The only current quarterback who has a chance of beating this record is Peyton Manning and that is very unlikely. --PlasmaTwa2 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I'm not even opposing this on centrism grounds, never mind the fact that cricket records tend to not be posted on ITN either. The fact of the matter is that there are many records of this sort in the NFL. Its notability therefore is very limited even within the scope of its own sport.--WaltCip (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket records have been posted, though some get rejected. Passing yards for quarterbacks is one of the major records in North American footbal.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I am a sports fan and if this were something along the lines of 'all-time passing yards leader in NFL history' then I would consider it, but even from Australia I know that the CFL is an inferior league to the NFL. If I mentioned Peyton Manning to my friends, quite a few would know who he is, but I doubt anyone would have heard of Anthony Calvillo or even his team, the Montreal Alouettes. To be honest, if Calvillo is such a good player he would be playing in the NFL, not the CFL. Jenks24 (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We very, very rarely post sporting statistics, and even then only the single most important statistic for a player at the undisputed top level of their sport, and only in major sports. Examples would be the most home runs ever in the MLB, most runs in Test cricket, most victories in Formula One Grands Prix, most points in the NBA, etc. This nomination is not on that level of significance. Modest Genius talk 14:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Polish Elections 2011

Article: Polish parliamentary election, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk's Civic Platform wins a plurality following an election. (Post)
News source(s): [44]
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: this is an ITN/R story, only requires some updating. Crnorizec (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... i dont feel this requires and ITN blurb... since the dude has been the prime minster since '16 November 2007' and the events where the prime minister is replaced are ITN worth. (False postitive?) Anyways... i oppose... --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, so your opposition is misplaced. Nightw 11:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. General elections are always ITNR, regardless if the opposition party/-ies topple the government or not. Obvious support if someone is kind enough to see the article is updated with prose (numbers are currently in, but ITN requires a prose update too). --hydrox (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the results are out, please update the article. We can post it when that's been done, but why bother nominating it until it has been? Nightw 11:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, resident WP psephologist is at work. Expanded, full results expected today.
UPDATE: Cleaned the page up but theres a massive uncited sectio (except for 1 cite i just added). Results should be in about 12 hours or less from now and will then be updated by m,e or aother. Also changed the blurb to consistet ones on these issues.Lihaas (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The results section is somehow updated, though I would prefer a full table. Posted. --Tone 11:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PULL IT now its not updated at all. Were waiting for the full results and right now its pov to only list the major parties' results based on less tha 100% of precincts.
As i did the up-date i think i know what im talking about..Lihaas (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. --Tone 12:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, ad sorry. some ips are already makig unsourced changeds;)Lihaas (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Let me know when you've finished. --Tone 19:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All set ow..Lihaas (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. Nice job. --Tone 22:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Champions League Twenty20

Article: 2011 Champions League Twenty20 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Mumbai Indians defeat Royal Challengers Bangalore to win the 2011 Champions League Twenty20. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN Cricinfo, BBC Sport
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Highest T20 cricket tournament for domestic T20 teams. Winners/runner ups of the KFC Big Bash (Australia), IPL (India), Pro20 (South Africa), HRV Cup (New Zealand), Caribbean Twenty20 (West Indies), Friends Life t20 (England) and Inter-Provincial Cricket Tournament (Sri Lanka) played the tournament. I know I will be stretching it to compare it to the Football Champions League, but this is roughly the equivalent of the same for Cricket. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Major sports league with international reach.--WaltCip (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is this ITN/R? If not, it's for good reason. This tournament is far from the top of its field. First Twenty20 remains secondary to Test and One Day cricket, major events of which we post here. Secondly, this is not a tournament between nations, it is a tournament between domestic teams. In that respect, it is a cricketing novelty designed to make a buck. It has zero significance. Unlike soccer, cricket remains a sport played at the highest level by nations, not clubs or other entities. Certainly the coverage in Australia has been scant. If we are to post any 20/20 cricket, it ought to be the ICC World Twenty20. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless it's ITN/R. This is just a domestic cricketing league where they play a bastardised version of the game that has only recently received any recognition from the cricketing world. Deterence Talk 04:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a knee-jerk reaction as shows no sign that the article was read before posting that comment. Mtking (edits) 19:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could at least try to remain civil and refrain from unfounded personal attacks. While this tournament may appear to have some international flavour it is essentially an Indian cricket tournament with some high-profile international teams/players thrown-in to boost its profile and distinguish it from the IPL as different cricketing leagues vie for dominance. Deterence Talk 23:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that its of lesser significance than the ICC World Twenty20 and I'm not a huge fan of T20 myself ... but nevertheless I feel this is an important enough tournament. Yeah, its not on ITN/R yet but I can see a discussion on the talk page where its suggested that it go through ITN/C first. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not a domestic league (did Deterence even read this thread, yet alone the article?), but we already have, and have had this year (May 29) the IPL. Suggest discussion among those with an interest in cricket and ITN to decide which one of the two merits a slot on ITN/R from next year. Given the relative unimportance of club (as opposed to international) cricket, couldn't support two club events at ITN/R. Kevin McE (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an Indian tournament in everything but its name. Paying international players exorbitant sums of money to participate does not make this an international event. Deterence Talk 06:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would describe the IPL, but not this event. Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool story bro. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of ITNR status does not imply that a consensus has been reached that this is not sufficiently notable. I'm neutral on this one. I think the IPL has proven to be a very notable tournament and I wouldn't drop that one for now. The comparison here for me isn't the Champions League but rather the FIFA Club World Cup, which was not posted last year.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an international club cricket tournament. Mtking (edits) 19:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this year: the tournament currently receives little coverage outside of India and those clubs that are participating. I followed the tournament due to Somerset's involvement, but otherwise wouldn't have given a monkey's about it. On the other hand, it seems to be gaining more prestige and importance, so next year's competition may have a good claim. I would suggest that between this and the IPL though, this is the better to have on ITN: the IPL is purely an Indian domestic competition, this at least has some claim of worldwide appeal. At the moment, I'd have neither. Harrias talk 20:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we post more than enough sport as it is, both via ITNR and other one-off events. This is a recurring event that does not represent the pinnacle of the sport. This league has little historical significance or worldwide notability even within that sport. I don't see anything of a stand-out nature to justify an ITN post, yet alone ITNR status. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose. As a cricket watcher and contributor, I only caught up with the fact that this tournament was going on when it was virtually over, even though my team, Somerset, were involved. It seems to me to be primarily a domestic tournament, or at least an offshoot of the domestic IPL with a rather doubtful international element grafted on, and to my mind is more showbiz than cricket. That said, if in future years it can become truly international in terms of venues and participants, then it might be worth considering at that stage. But for now, no. BTW, for User:Crispmuncher above, I have no problem with sports events being in ITN: they reach an awful lot of people and are often 'good news' stories. But this one doesn't work for me. Johnlp (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment this is NOT a domestic league per discussio on ITNR which was then not opposed. Its international with every [major] cricket test country, except Pak but that politicalLihaas (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with Lihass. Two opposes here have erroneously called this a domestic tournament. It may be primarily popular in India but the tournament certainly has solid international credentials.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, while some of the arguments against posting these makes sense (like how cricket is still an international-team focused game and not club-focused yet), I didnt even feel the need to refute the first claim that its a domestic tournament - until a couple of more opposes were made on those lines. The tournament (no doubt inspired by the success of the IPL) was first founded by the three boards of India, Australia and South Africa. After that other boards also jumped in. Now we have the winners/runner ups of the KFC Big Bash (Australia), IPL (India), Pro20 (South Africa), HRV Cup (New Zealand), Caribbean Twenty20 (West Indies), Friends Life t20 (England) and Inter-Provincial Cricket Tournament (Sri Lanka) playing the tournament. I will concede that certain facets do have an Indian taste to it but that's only reflective of India's clout in international cricket - that doesn't make this a domestic tournament. Any such claim is, in fact, a slap in the face of the other participating cricket boards. As regards venue: 2 out of the 3 tournaments have been played in India (and one in South Africa), but then the first three cricket world cups were hosted in England (before you jump at me: I wouldnt even dare equate the two). All of these are reflective of the commercial viability and popularity of the sport (and relative strength of boards) at that particular time. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments on WT:ITNR. With the exception of the IPL, domestic (club level) cricket serves mostly as a means to develop players for the international teams. We should certainly post the international T20 tournaments (ICC World Twenty20 is already on ITNR), but not the club ones. Besides, the IPL is also in ITNR, which is enough club level T20 already. If we should add any more cricket to ITN, it should be from the Test / first-class form of the game, not T20. And I'm not convinced that there are any obvious tournaments to add there. Modest Genius talk 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

Articles: Thomas J. Sargent (talk · history · tag) and Christopher A. Sims (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Thomas J. Sargent and Christopher A. Sims share the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for their contributions to macroeconomics. (Post)
News source(s): Official Nobel press release BBC Google News
Credits:

Both articles updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: The winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences will be announced in about 10 hours. Obviously, the article needs to be updated appropriately before posting. The winners have been announced. --OCNative (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed. I don't recall ever having read the label "economic sciences" as a substitute for "economics" and it requires a fair bit of connect-the-dots before I allow myself to accept that economics is a science, in the broadest sense of the term (in the same was that psychology is a science). Deterence Talk 06:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More soapboxing. ITN is not a section to express your personal opinions about a particular field of study; it's a section for evaluating the notability of nomination and the quality of their updates. Here the official name of the award uses the term "Economic Sciences", and hence that is exactly what we will put on the main page, even if some users disagree with the implication of the title. Meanwhile, if you wish to engage in a debate about what exactly is a science and what isn't, I'll be happy to join you in a talk page or in private correspondence. JimSukwutput 07:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think you may be missing the point. [45] The official title is "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". It's known to every man, woman and child as "Nobel Prize for Economics", though, which is what we should put in the blurb. --FormerIP (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The official title uses the term "Economic Sciences", hence that is exactly what we will include on the main page. Deterence was trying to change this by stating his personal opinion that economics is not a science, and hence he wishes to artificially omit part of the award's title. This is anti-intellectual bigotry, and has no place in ITN where we state facts as they are and not as we wish.
I know that you made a separate point, saying that the Nobel Prize in Economics is a more common term. That fact I do not dispute, and I see your reasoning here. However, I still prefer a wording more in line with the official title (Notice that on the English Wikipedia the title is Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences) There is very good reason that the prize used the term "Economic Sciences" and "Nobel Memorial Prize", and by avoiding these terms intentionally we are effectively acting against the intentions of the award committee, which is not something that we should do unless there are extremely good reasons to. JimSukwutput 15:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that saying 'Economic Sciences' only adds one more word to the blurb (depending on the wording), I don't think it makes the blurb too wordy. I normally prefer to stick to the usage used by the mainstream press in ITN blurbs but perhaps here we have a good opportunity to differentiate In the News from mainstream news sources by using the correct term.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ya im going to go with Jim on this one. Use what is official. -- Ashish-g55 16:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both articles updated. As with all the other Nobel Prizes, the update is quite brief, but I do not find that a problem. Nobel Prizes (except the Peace Prize) are awarded to celebrate academic contributions over a long period of time and we have two pretty good articles on what exactly those contributions were. JimSukwutput 16:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to provoke a fight (or a posting war) but these are both borderline stubs without much content. Christopher Sims in particular is only just barely referenced (three of four references are used just to tell us where he works and that he won a Nobel). It would be nice to see both of these expanded. Dragons flight (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The articles for the Nobel Prize winners of physiology/medicine and physics are quite short as well. Academics working in technical fields tend not to have detailed articles, in part because not many people truly understand their work, and in part because there is not a big audience on Wikipedia. Biographies of economists tend to be even worse than those of the natural scientists. Whereas there are close projects for collaboration in many natural science fields that have managed to create quality articles relatively undisturbed by edit warring and agenda-based edits, this is not true for economics, mainly because it attracts a lot of misguided attention from folks who vastly overestimate their knowledge of the field. Given this, I was actually quite surprised that we managed to have two decent short articles on the economists at the time of the posting. JimSukwutput 04:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Physics:
For comparison, yours are:
I'm not encouraging a fight (and please no one try to pull them), but yes they can be expanded more than they have. Sims's article in particular is pretty weak and should be improved from its current stub-labelled state. Dragons flight (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

October 9, 2011 (2011-10-09) (Sunday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Arts and culture
  • Former Beatle Sir Paul McCartney marries American heiress Nancy Shevell at a ceremony in London. (BBC)

Disasters

Politics and elections

Sport

[Posted] Dexia nationalized

Article: Dexia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ France and Belgium agree to nationalize Dexia, Belgium's biggest bank. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is Belgium's biggest bank going down. According to the NYT article, Dexia "is the biggest euro zone bank failure in quite some time". According to the NYT article, a main problem was that Dexia held €20b of greek bonds. France and Belgium will buy different parts of the bank. Thue

Posting. --Tone 12:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Belgian division of the bank only is to be nationalised [49]. The blurb should be changed to reflect this. --FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the blurb should maybe read: The government of Belgium buys Dexia's operations in the country for €4 billion. or The government of Belgium buys Dexia's operations in the country for €4 billion, after the bank suffers heavy losses in the European sovereign debt crisis. --hydrox (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too long. What about partially nationalize? --Tone 14:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You sure? The underlined one is only 12 letters longer than the current one. If you wanna mention countries, you should mention Luxembourg as well, as they're one party in the deal. --hydrox (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
France and Belgium agree to nationalize the Belgian division of Dexia bank. ? --FormerIP (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the NYT article, "Dexia’s French municipal financing arm would be split from the group and merged with the French state bank Caisse des Dépôts and the banking arm of the French postal service, Banque Postale." So part of Dexia's French operation is being bought by French state-owned firms, which also have to count as nationalization IMO. Thue | talk 14:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NYT story is old. The biggest news is that all of Belgian operations are being nationalized, at least on BBC. "partly nationalized" is a good compromise I guess, but should Luxembourg be also listed alongside France and Belgium? --hydrox (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, the NYT story was filed before any official announcement was made. The French arm is to receive public financing but is not being nationalised, according to Reuters. It seems that Dexia is still in talks to nationalise its Luxembourg arm, but that also seems to be a comparatively small part of the bank. --FormerIP (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, finally someone changed the blurb. --hydrox (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Clashes in Egypt

Article: Timeline_of_the_2011_Egyptian_revolution_under_Supreme_Council_of_the_Armed_Forces#October (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hundreds injured and at least 25 killed as violent clashes between Coptic Christians and the army erupt at the Maspiro demonstration in Cairo. (Post)
News source(s): Egyptian Military attacks Alhurra TV, Protesters marching to Maspero met with violence, Video Shows Egyptian Police Beating a Christian Protester
Credits:

Article updated

 — The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As the nom. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no update. Please, provide some content when nominating, not just external links... --Tone 19:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, things got ugly, indeed. Still, we should wait the things get clearer. Most likely I'll support posting then. --Tone 20:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but with conditions Blurb should reflect the protests. The military attacked Christian sites. So, something like "19 people are killed and 150 injured following protests by Coptic Christians against the military." Christian should be somewhere in the blurb. source. WikifanBe nice 21:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are/were many muslims and non-believers among the protesters. wait for the content and Im waiting for some activists to post some of the pics of flickr to put a picture on the event :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The protests were about Coptic Christian grievances (church burning prior to protests) and they led the riots. WikifanBe nice 23:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither I think there were many non-believers, nor I think there were any non-believers.--♫GoP♫TCN 14:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New blurb is a definite improvement, but needs to be tightened. 24 fatalities shouldn't be described as "tensions." New 24 deaths and 200 injured, not 100. WikifanBe nice 09:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better? ¬ laonikoss (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very much. But Christian/Coptic should be in the blurb somewhere. WikifanBe nice 16:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, yes, violence in the arab world right now is so routine. Yesterday more than 50 died Yemen, Syria, and Egypt due to the ongoing arab spring. When I heard that 20 people died in Syria yesterday, I didnt think it be ITN worthy cuz the number was not big enough. How fu**ed up is that? :-( -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dragons flight, at the risk of being accused of Soapboxing again, many editors shy away from creating articles about this sort of event because they are almost always immediately nominated for AfD by someone harping on about WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Such articles are routinely deleted all the time. Deterence Talk 19:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone whose worked on many such articles, I tend to disagree. They are rarely deleted, though many get merged into a larger context. That said, I am rather surprised that the only place this appears is a "timeline" article. We don't seem to even have a general article on post-Mubarak Egypt, and for the most part 2011 Egyptian revolution says little about the post-Mubarak era. Frankly the timeline is just about the epitome of NOTNEWS, since it generally just chronicles news events with very little broader context. Personally, I'd feel much better if we had a real article on post-Mubarak Egypt (or some similar title), which included a section summarizing the larger issue of sectarian violence, to which this was added. Or if this is really a big story (which it would be in the Western world, but maybe not in Egypt), then it could have its own article with cross-links from a post-Mubarak article. Frankly, I'm close to opposing this. Not because I believe the story lacks merit, but because the relevant sections of Wikipedia seem to be in a poor state. Dragons flight (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your personal success rate is testimony to the quality of your contributions. For many editors, the impending AfD battles that inevitably attach to most news-related articles constitute a significant disincentive. Deterence Talk 23:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - really good conflict Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better blurb please. That is, one that is grammatically correct. I see some reference to a "better" blurb, but surely it's not this one, as it's not a complete sentence. -- tariqabjotu 07:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Never mind; I just wrote one myself. -- tariqabjotu 14:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Sebastian Vettel

Articles: Sebastian Vettel (talk · history · tag) and 2011 Formula One season (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Sebastian Vettel (pictured) wins this year's Formula One season, after winning the Japanese Grand Prix. (Post)
Credits:

Both articles need updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 — Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:ITN/R, you can't vote on putting it in. Sorry to say. — Joseph Fox 05:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion stands. Are there any reasons it is not factually correct? 69.171.160.90 (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ITN/R is a guideline. It can be set aside in specific cases for any good reason. An oppose such as this is perfectly valid. Nonetheless I support. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can oppose, but not here ... you need to do it on the INTR page. If there is a valid enough reason that a recurring event should not be posted on ITN (or that it should be posted only on specific case-to-case basis), then it needs to be thrown out of ITNR. On an ITNR topic, notability need not be discussed here. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a bureaucracy. You can oppose it anywhere, and there are a number of good reasons to oppose here not there (eg if you are objecting to posting a recurring event this year as opposed to all recurrences of the event). --Mkativerata (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you should be able to voice opposition to ITNR items here. Another good reason it should be here is that Wikipedia talk:ITNR gets a lot fewer eyes than ITNC, and as a result, a weaker consensus.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from ITN/R: Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. However, the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed. My understanding of the above is that if the World Chess Championship 2013 is proposed here then the notability of World Chess Championship 2013 is deemed to have been satisfied and all we need to ensure is whether the article has been updated appropriately. If the World Chess Championship is such an event that the 2013 event may or may not be notable based on what actually goes on at that particular tournament, and if such a discussion is required - then it should not be ITN/R and should rather be discussed on a case-to-case basis. Would you disagree? Please let me know if I've lost the plot somewhere. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of ITN is to indicate events which, as you quote, have already satisfied the importance criterion. That is, there is already a consensus that such items are significant enough. However, Consensus can change. There are events which were placed on ITNR years ago which may not reflect present consensus.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you that consensus can change. I just feel that the ITN candidate page should not be the forum for that discussion because it will then practically render the INTR list redundant. Lets take the Ashes for example. When the next Ashes gets nominated for ITN - if the notability of the Ashes is going to be challenged on the candidate page, then what good is it that its on the ITNR list? Squat! The Ashes being on the ITNR page will be of no consequence if notability has to be established again. The entire discussion that happened on the ITNR page will have to be repeated. At the time of nomination, the Ashes and the Indian tour of the West Indies will be standing before the candidates page at an equal footing until the discussion brings about as to why and how the Ashes is notable while the India-West Indies tour is not. My point is that if something has been admitted into the ITNR, it has been done so after due consideration and after a consensus has been achieved. If circumstances have changed such that the consensus have also changed (or is likely to change), then the required discussion should happen at the same forum where said consensus was first achieved. Getting an item knocked off the ITNR list will no doubt require a higher threshold than opposing an item on the candidate page (and rightly so, because the item has already crossed a high threshold to make it to the ITNR page). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Ashes, or most ITNR events, were opposed here (as often happens) the one or two opposes would be ignored or countered by other posters and the Admins. Admins here are generally good at recognizing that and ITNR event in fact has a pre-determined consensus and that one or two opposes doesn't change that. The Ashes would not need to prove again that it has consensus. However, if there were sufficient enough well-reasoned opposes on a given item to suggest that consensus has changed, or that this particular recurrence of the event is unnotable for some reason, then the admins would reconsider. The bottom line is if there are good reasons to oppose an item even though it's ITNR, then they really ought to be raised here IMO; ITNC is where we discuss the merits of any particular nomination.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I guess that makes sense, but the only worry would be that often people don't pile on support if its an ITNR item (since they dont perceive a requirement to establish notability) and the opposing comments stand out ... Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't win the Japanese Gradn Prix, Button did. But still, he's the overall winner. Vettel's artice needs some more update in the 2011 section, otherwise this it good to post. We can include in the blurb that he won the title several races before the end of the season. --Tone 08:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian Vettel (pictured) wins the 2011 Formula One season with four races still remaining.
PrimeHunter (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support PrimeHunter's blurb. Normally we would post the constructor's championship at the same time, but that hasn't been decided yet. We can post it at a later date. Modest Genius talk 13:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Leaky Caldron. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted - Personally, I think the fact he's the youngest ever to win two is more important than doing it with four races left, so incorporated the former fact over the latter. — Joseph Fox 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose of current blurb One does not win the season, but the driver's world championship (there is also the constructor's championship for the winning team). In any event, the championships are only officially awarded at the end of the season even if there is an unassailable lead before then.
    ITNR status is also legitimately debatable: the situation is similar to the tennis grand slams, since both championships are listed together on ITNR. In this case it is probably worth posting individually though since they can (and this season have) become certainties several weeks apart and not on consecutive days. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    I've removed the claim that Vettel won the season. —David Levy 19:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because I Tivoed this race and now have had it spoiled by this irresponsible ITNC discussion! ;) (pfft, as if his winning the championship was in any doubt) --Golbez (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

October 8, 2011 (2011-10-08) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Sport

Transportation

Al Davis death

He's widely considered one of the most important people in the history of one of the world's most popular leagues. It has gotten international coverage. ESPN CBC Aussie BC Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, again, death of a pretty notable guy to natural causes at old age with no immediate effect in his subject area is not enough for ITN nomination. Colipon+(Talk) 20:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose exactly as above. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was ready to come here to support because I thought we posted Steinbrenner's death. Except we didn't. That discussion was a unanimous oppose. Al Davis made numerous important contributions to the NFL, but he's no Steinbrenner. So I oppose. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davis did much more to his sport, than Steinbrenner did to his. He was without a doubt one of the most important executives in the history of american sports in general, with only Pete Rozelle, Lamar Hunt, and George Halas doing as much for football to become a popular sport as Davis, but this article is kinda bad right now, very poorly sourced and such. Until the article gets updated and in better shape Oppose Secret account 22:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I agree that Davis is "more important" to his sport than Steinbrenner and one of the most important owner figures in the history of the NFL, but if we did not post Steinbrenner, and since Davis had been sick for quite some time, and if his article is in bad shape, than I most also oppose even though I really did come here to suggest it be included. Alas. RIP, Mr. Davis. Rhodesisland (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As commissioner of the American Football League, Davis' aggressive build-up of the fledgling league was vital to the merger of leagues (ironically, against his wishes) that make up the current NFL, among other his numerous other impacts on the sport, aside from winning the championship three times in two cities. Huge story in North America, with coverage worldwide. Article could use help but is presentable. Unconvinced by the reasoning of opposers. Jusdafax 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Has anyone heard of this guy outside of his domestic sporting franchise? Deterence Talk 04:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Wall Street

Article: Occupy Wall Street (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Occupy Wall Street protests spread to more than 23 US cities and 25 countries, as Federal Reserve officials express support. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters CNN BBC Denver Post
Credits:

Article updated

 Dualus (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The protests should be covered but the bit about federal reserve officers expressing support is weasel worded bias. Also the cities/countries is kind of a numberwang. Is there a better bench mark we could mention/wait for? JORGENEV 07:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Now this is very interesting. 25 countries? Fed support? Wow. Swarm 09:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support first clause, reject second clause. 'International news story is a good description of the first clause, while 'weasel-worded bias' is a good description of the second. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose The "spreads to 25 countries" claim is premature. There is a planned "global" protest on 15 October, one week from now. As these events are yet to materialize, we should wait until next week to asses the actual global implications. Also, Reuters article has it Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher said he was "somewhat sympathetic" with the demonstrators. However, it remains unclear whether he gave this as a personal statement, or as an official position of the institution. I have good reasons to believe the first, as there is no such press release on the Fed homepage. --hydrox (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it would certainly be best to renominate this iff the the blurb is '25 countries' claim is proven correct in the future, and I would oppose just posting the protests in the US. Swarm 13:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is with the hurry? We already posted Wall Street protests last week, and it was very controversial. Suddenly it seems these protests have become the center of the world, although similar and much larger protests have been ongoing around the world for years without any ITN coverage. Remember, that only a portion of Wikipedia-readers are American. For most people of the world, these protests are of no concern. --hydrox (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, and I'm not sure how you detected anything but. Swarm 17:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

October 7, 2011 (2011-10-07) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sport

Aakash tablet

Article: Aakash tablet (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ India introduces the world's cheapest tablet computer, the Aakash. (Post)
News source(s): CTV Mobile Indian Financial Times
Credits:

 --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kindle Fire release wasn't nominated; even ITNR items aren't nominated sometimes. I don't that it's lack of posting should be used as precedent for not posting similar topics I'll support in principle with a modified blurb reflecting above concerns. Other media outlets have went with the 'world's cheapest' line; is it possible to use a phrasing that is less problematic?--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really have a problem with the blurb. It's inherently subjective and impossible to prove, since the first supertablet (whatever that is) ever created would have been the only tablet on the market, thus automatically the cheapest.--WaltCip (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, this might be interesting in the larger context. Apparently they want to sell 100,000 of these things at a subsidized cost of $35 as the first step towards putting tablet computers in the hands of 10 million Indian schoolchildren. Reminds me somewhat of OLPC. However, we don't seem to have an article discussing the larger goals of the government program, and I'm not sure how we would arrange the blurb even if we did. Dragons flight (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with modified blurb. Maybe something like "A $35 tablet computer is launched in India as part of a project to bridge the digital divide in the country". We din't post Kindle Fire or iPhone 4S or whatever, but those are less interesting launches, IMO. Would note, however, that the news is already slightly old. --FormerIP (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If Apple or Dell comes out w/ a cheaper tablet next week will we run it? The cycle is endless. Rhodesisland (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- "Consumers don't want tablets, they want iPads" I'm not seeing significant coverage of this. Marcus Qwertyus 00:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not really making headline news (news yes, but not really up there) even in India amidst all the Planing Commission, Narendra Modi and Omar Abdullah news(and of course, the compulsory Anna Hazare news), unlike when the Tata Nano (cheapest car) was released. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ramiz Alia

Article: Ramiz Alia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Last communist leader of Albania, Ramiz Alia, dies at the age of 85. (Post)
News source(s): CNBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: In principle we use to post any death of a former head of state. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Well, we don't post every head of state. Just the ones that were considered especially notable. The particular article is not in good shape for ITN at this point, references are missing. Maybe fix that first. --Tone 12:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when the article is ready. Head of state for ten years, including during the transition to multi-party democracy. But let's stick to the facts: a) He was not the first president, and b) I don't think you could really call him the last communist leader either. His party (or its successor) has been in power twice since and there's still a communist party active. Perhaps just describe him as "Former head of state of Albania"? Nightw 12:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Albania was a republic 1925-28: Zog was the president, before becoming king when the country adopted a monarchist constitution in 1928. Kevin McE (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tweaked the article a little bit adding more citations, and will keep up working until it gets the sufficient quality.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Are you serious? We should only post deaths if the person is of great significance. Even those Soviet premiers whose deaths we posted generated controversy. Colipon+(Talk) 14:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    His significance is obvious as being a former head of state, especially one who played a critical role in the transformation of the regime in his country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't get the obsession with the nation-state on ITN. Why are we posting election updates about pacific island countries? Why are we posting the deaths of small country's former leaders? To me, regime change is not enough per se to justify a posting here: then almost every leader in Sub-Saharan Africa in the post-colonial era deserves to be posted when they die since they 'changed the regime' in their respective states. We should be posting things of general interest that our readership care about, or articles of encyclopedic value that have a great effect on a certain field - such as in the sciences (universe expansion acceleration is a good example). The nation-state is just a construct, and we should not be judging encyclopedic value purely based on a high office a person held in relation to their country. To me, that is just pedantic. No one wants to read about the Marshall Islands elections, just as very few will want to read about the former leader of a small country whose death was due to natural causes and was otherwise unknown. (sorry if I offended Albanians or Marshallese).Colipon+(Talk) 17:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To me it sounds far from being proper to say that the country is minor or of no interest to our readers. All countries should be treated same; else it's a POV. Even if you can distinguish the countries in a proper way, your comparison with the Pacific Islands and Sub-Saharan Africa is completely nonsense, since we're talking about European country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "All countries should be treated same" Nonsense. There are no news organizations, nor encyclopedias, that follows this notion (When was the last World Book with equal space given to Nauru and the US?), I see no reason why we should. Of course it's a POV; all Wikipediae are fundamental biased towards things of interest to their language. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To further elaborate, if all countries are treated the same, then it would stand to reason that you think all of their leaders, or all their cities, or all their religions, should be treated the same on Wikipedia, but this honestly simply isn't possible, if only for differing sizes and significances. --Golbez (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Golbez. You have to draw the line somewhere. Here it's quite simple: On relative terms, Albania is insignificant, this man's contributions were not notable, and he died of natural causes long after leaving office.
    I am opposed to WP showering ITN with deaths of political leaders in general. Death from natural causes generally require very high notability thresholds; i.e. only extremely notable ones should be posted, such as Steve Jobs. Otherwise there is a 'recent deaths' section. Colipon+(Talk) 21:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt you mean the death of Steve Jobs should be a criterion to judge other death nominations. And Golbez, you've apparently misunderstood a large portion of my comment above. If something regarding the politics of Nauru is sufficient for posting, and of the United States as well, we simply don't need to contest the significance of two items that are already sufficient. Classifying something as sufficient and something other more sufficient leads to an extreme POV. In ITNR we have items with note valid for all countries, but not a broader explanation for the countries that are of larger significance than others. Thus, comparing two countries cannot be an impartial criterion to judge any nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've cited another source with immense information about his life, and now seems like the death section only needs further improvement.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Much as I admire and applaud them, it would be good to move on from all the Nobel winners. --FormerIP (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A brief tenure as the leader of a very small country. Not significant enough, in my view. The article is also way short of postability. --Mkativerata (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is seven years brief? --FormerIP (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support as notable and almost certainly led to some change there. we also posted the last Lithuanian comm leader about a year ago.Lihaas (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Vote with no justification is not counted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but the article is mostly unreferenced. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nobel Peace Prize

Articles: Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (talk · history · tag) and Leymah Gbowee (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, and Tawakel Karman share the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to advance women's rights. (Post)
News source(s): Official Nobel announcement Washington Post
Credits:

Both articles need updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Winner will be announced in about than 12 hours.Bouazizi!!! Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wo ho!!!!! My article creation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As good as an award to me!!!
wheres my barnstar for the hordes of foreign articles based on this? ;)Lihaas (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you one. GreyHood Talk 10:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ThxLihaas (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definitely for ITN. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Isn't this ITNR anyway? Crnorizec (talk) 10:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ITNR. It also seems ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a bit more of an update before posting, currently sitting at just over a line to each article. — Joseph Fox 13:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's what I disagree with. Requiring a more extensive update than that before we put the article up on ITN doesn't serve the interests of Wikipedia users. Many Wikipedia users will have never heard of at least one of the three winners before and thus will have never read the Wikipedia articles about them before. (I had heard of Sirleaf, but not of the other two winners.) They won't be disappointed by the fact that most of the content of these articles was written before today. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given what I was able to do on the last few Nobel articles, all that these need is a brief statement to why the won the award, and the relevancy of that work. Obviously, they all won it for supporting womens' rights. But there's specific facets in the WaPost article, for example, to explain the impact of their work. That's one-two sentences at most, though I'm sure that with more time, larger writing could be done. But just those 1-2 lines are likely sufficient for ITN. --MASEM (t) 13:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's really not hard to make these sort of updates. Write a sentence or two on why she won the prize, referenced to the Nobel announcement. Then add a quote or two from others, which wouldn't be hard to find given the huge number of media articles covering this. Do that for each winner, then it's ready. Only 30 minutes work or so; unfortunately I don't have the time myself right now. Simply adding '2011 Nobel Peace Prize' to a list of awards is just not good enough. Modest Genius talk 13:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true; if the NYT alone can write two full pages on this story, there's really no excuse for us not writing a sufficient update before posting. I don't support post/pull warring. But this suddenly-developing trend of users dismissing our update requirements because they can't be bothered to write a few paras is concerning. Swarm 17:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concern I'm having is that some of the articles on the Nobel winners this week pretty much contained all that there was to say about their work that was being reported by the Nobel awardee articles, give or take a few sentences to establish layperson context. I agree that NYTimes and others can write paras about the winners in a short period, but in our case, we have articles already with this information and to try to draw blood from a stone to get a "few paras" in lieu of timely ITN posting is of concern. We want the ITN to be posted as soon as the information in article reflects what the ITN is saying so that more editors will be drawn to improve on that while the iron is hot. If the article is a stub and suddenly ITN-worthy, then yes, a few paras seem right. But a short article may not be easy to expand immediately if it already provides appropriate summaries. In other words, we shouldn't be getting hung up on the quantity of text added to an article prior to ITN, but rather if the article reflects and expands sufficiently to make it an ITN-worth topic. --MASEM (t) 17:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While you make some fair points, I have somewhat of an opposite concern. See the comment below me by Mocctur for an example. Swarm 17:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously mustn't cater to the misconception that the section is a news ticker, but there appears to be strong consensus for considering all of the article's directly relevant content when determining whether it's been properly updated. Provided that there are no glaring omissions, whether the information was added today or a year ago makes little difference. It seems rather pointless and counterproductive to effectively penalize editors (and by extension, readers) for improving an article beforehand instead of waiting until a Nobel Prize is awarded to write about the achievements that led to it. —David Levy 18:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:In the news#Updated content, which I revised to reflect consensus/current practice. (The fourth paragraph is new.) I believe that this addresses your concern. —David Levy 18:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems like a reasonable addition, based on the ITN/C discussions this past week. -- tariqabjotu 19:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that in that addition, that the "natural death of a significantly predominate figure" be an example as well? The Steve Jobs ITN thing would be a case where there's not much you can say on his death but his influence was clearly already alluded to before his death in his article. But otherwise I think that gets the issue across - some news events are things that happen like someone turning on a switch (as opposed to an ongoing political conflict, a natural disaster, etc.) and to expect a wealth of new information to be available would be surprising. --MASEM (t) 20:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That really isn't a comparable example. A Nobel Prize award is a direct result of a person's past achievements, so if an article contains reasonable descriptions of the relevant work (whether written today or a year ago), the award's context is properly presented.
Conversely, thorough documentation of a person's influence in life tells us little or nothing about his/her death and the impact thereof.
There was plenty to write about the death of Steve Jobs. The only problem was some editors' insistence on treating ITN as a news ticker requiring the addition of an immediate report. —David Levy 21:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very few people are notable for how they die. Most, like Steve Jobs, are notable for their accomplishments in life, and that part of the article is often well-covered before they died. We aren't a news ticker, so why are we deciding when to post articles based on how much news has been added to them? Our decisions should be based on whether an article is of high-quality and relevant to the topics of current interest. In some cases, articles do take major improvements in order to reach a high level of quality and relevance, but in other cases, the article is already relevant and of high-quality without needing many changes. Dragons flight (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite true that when notable persons die (often under mundane circumstances), people want to read about their lives. And while there was a great deal to write about the death of Steve Jobs, that isn't always the case. For this reason, I've previously expressed support for the suggestion that we incorporate death items in such instances (and proposed a compromise method). My point is not that this isn't a sensible idea, but that it doesn't fall under the exception discussed above. —David Levy 22:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the David's fix above, which should help in the case of notable awards based on previous notable work. However, I'd word the issue with deaths a bit differently; IMO if there isn't a great deal to write about a person's death, then perhaps they don't meet ITN's death criteria. The main issue here is that the update requirement prevents us from posting immediately, as we have to wait for developments after the figure's death that can be added to the article. I can see how with the death of Jobs it can seem pointless to wait since it seems inevitable that his death will be posted; on the other hand ITN is never going to be able to get news out as quickly as actual news outlets.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with John and David. David's change is a simple reflection of consensus. The death of Jobs was definitely unique in its "speedy post" nature but I certainly don't think it reflects a shift in consensus. Swarm 05:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cant complain about the quality of the "1-line" update at Tawakel Karman's page..')
must have bee the most pop page on WP yest...least known about her of the peace prizes ;)Lihaas (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

October 6, 2011 (2011-10-06) (Thursday)
Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Two participants of the World's hottest chilli eating contest hospitalized

OK, that's enough messing about. There's no need to ridicule the nomination any further, you've all had your fun. Modest Genius talk 01:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article: No article specified
Blurb: ​ Two participants of the World's hottest chilli eating contest hospitalized. (Post)
News source(s): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-15183070
 Count Iblis (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not yanking our chains, you are the stupidest admin ever. If you are so yanking, well done. --FormerIP (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Literature

Article: Nobel Prize in Literature (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tomas Tranströmer wins the Nobel Prize in Literature. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Winner will be announced in less than 12 hours. Lihaas (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Tranströmer is the laureate. The article needs some work. But when it's ready, there's a free photo for the Main page. --Tone 11:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's not fart around for days waiting for a novella of updates to the article of this Nobel laureate like we've been doing for days. Aside from winning the prize, and the reason for winning the prize, there's bugger-all we can say about it at this point. Deterence Talk 11:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummmm, there's massive copyvio on this article (see: any AP about the award) I'm going to try to tackle it, but I'm a engineer, not a literary expert, help needed (but want to see the ITN up there). --MASEM (t) 13:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I've tried to do some updating (copyvios nixed, more refs added), I think there's more that can be added, but I dunno if this right now is sufficient for posting. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article on the author is much better than the articles on some other Nobel laureates in literature. Iwould oppose though using his picture on the main page; Steve Jobs has been a much more influential figure and his death should be in the spotlight. Desiderius82 (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. The article seems better now and the tags don't appear to be necessary, so I've removed them. Marking 'ready'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To provide context, may I suggest adding "for his influential poetry" as the reason why he received the prize (I agree the Nobel's statement is too flowery for the main page). --MASEM (t) 15:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll add the poetry part, otherwise it's just too short. Posting. --Tone 15:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're changing ITN leading pictures rather quickly, aren't we? We barely had a picture of the quasi-crystals yesterday, then Steve Jobs' mug when he died, and now just this morning the Nobel Laureate Tomas Tranströmer. I think we should pick one picture and stick with it for a couple of days before changing.--WaltCip (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most likely we will have a new one of tomorrow's peace prize winner. --Tone 19:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The picture at DYK changes every twelve hours, and the others change on a daily basis. Just because ITN is known for stagnant images doesn't mean it should be that way. I'm for illustrating the topmost item that has a free image. That also staves off the recurring complaints that the image isn't associated with the top item next to it. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

October 5, 2011 (2011-10-05) (Wednesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science

[Posted] Death of Steve Jobs

Article: Steve Jobs (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Apple Inc. founder Steve Jobs has died at age 56 of pancreatic cancer. (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post Official Apple statement New York Daily News
Credits:

Article updated

 --OCNative (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Traditionally we leave images up for 24 hours before replacing them, to prevent situations whereby a run of items without suitable pictures occur and the image remains the same for days (Fernando Lugo, anyone?). His picture should go up tomorrow. oh and an obvious post-posting support as well. Modest Genius talk 00:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-belated support. Obviously an important figurehead of innovation, and quite likely the icon for technological business worldwide. ~AH1 (discuss!) 00:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course WP:NOTLAW and WP:IAR are central Wikipedia principles, but as a general rule, we have processes set up for a reason, and we shouldn't get in the habit of circumventing it just for sensationalist stories such as this one. Swarm 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Pulled-Posted-Again-Facepalm Support Obviously. And the constant pulling of obviously notable ITN posts is pissing me off. Deterence Talk 00:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The update looks quite big enough with a picture from apple.com... More than most deaths. Posting and pulling is no better than just waiting 5 min for it to be updated. I agree should have waited to be properly updated before posting but at the rate the article is getting updated could have just waited a min rather than pulling to be honest. -- Ashish-g55 00:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - May I suggest everyone concerned review the 'Illness and Death' section? It seems quite well-developed at this time. Jusdafax 00:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The objections I have aren't that the article was posted to ITN, which I think it definitely qualifies for, but that 'to hell with process, post it now and update it later' prevailed over normal ITN process. Yes, there was consensus to post the entry. No, there was not consensus to post it before it was ready. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no kidding. 28 minutes from nom to post. It's quite sad and ridiculous actually. Poor GLONASS didn't stand a chance. (PS: No, I am **NOT** a damned troll). --108.132.169.195 (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Support the posting after the suitable update, as per Tariq. This happened while I was asleep so I'm not sure how long this took but I think people should have realized the death of a figure as notable as Steve Jobs was bound to provoke reactions, including statements from other notable individuals, and inevitably result in a suitable update. I little patience would have made this process smoother.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I assume that those statements were not available at the time the article was posted, so you can't really say that the article didn't contain all information. And why couldn't the updates have been just added to the article after posting? I see this blind adherence to the "update must be this big, no matter what" as unnecessarily rigid, and not in the reader's or Wikipedia's interest. Thue | talk 08:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the purpose of ITN is to post articles that have been substantially updated. Posting an article that doesn't meet that requirement simply doesn't serve the core pupose of ITN. As as said many times, (too often IMO but appropriate here)wikipeida is not a news service.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm starting to wonder if we need to revisit the purpose of ITN. Personally, I think promoting useful, high quality, and informative content on topics of current interest better fulfills Wikipedia's educational mission than arguing about whether a particular article has had a big enough update. Dragons flight (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, the simplest solution to this if we wanted to enable an article like Steve Jobs to be posted immediately would be have a 'recent deaths' section on the main page, as do some non-en Wikipedia pages do. However, I think requiring the update has it's use. In a way it's a useful litmus test of notability--if the figure is truly notable, the update will be done. The lack of a sufficient update can be an indication that the figure wasn't all that significant. In Jobs case it was clear from the start he's notable enough, of course. But in any case, what's the big deal really that it took a short time to get the update up?--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's not just Jobs, he's just the current example of silly bickering about an update. When an article is long, high quality, and detailed, my point is that the information it contains is still useful to the reader even when the update is trivial. If we are not a news source, then why do we decide what to post based on how much news has been added to the article? Seems like we should put more emphasis on the general quality and relevance of the articles we highlight and less on the size of updates. Dragons flight (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This site is not a memorial; what's more, God doesn't need a memorial. The pulling was an embarrassment. The only update necessary was a one-liner stating when and how he died. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Ready] Death of Bert Jansch

Bert Jansch was one of the most influential guitar players in the twentieth century - Jimi Hendrix once described him as the best acoustic guitar player, and his style has been emulated by folk guitar players for decades.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Eh, these are tough. I remember that it was hard getting Les Paul on ITN when he died (people opposed left and right), and he was a revolutionary in the field of rock music - I'm not sure we'll have consensus to post Jansch's death, as influential and amazing as he is. m.o.p 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His obituary in the Telegraph reads like a veritable who's-who of the British music industry in it's heyday, (Telegraph). Deterence Talk 21:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He has been at the front of the game for 40 years, influencing many and impressing millions. His style was groundbreaking, and as his obit shows, there's almost nobody he hasn't been associated with in modern music for generations. I have no doubt that it will be hard to get him on the front page but he does deserve to be heralded as one of the absolute icons of his genre. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not significant enough a person, in my subjective view. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A heck of a lot more significant than any rugby, cricket, basketball and soccer game in my equally subjective opinion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose what globla coverage?Lihaas (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
National News in Denmark for example.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
good lord, ive met my match (and that came out right ;))Lihaas (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is too late anyway. The admins were absent this time.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's me 10:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Article: Daniel Shechtman (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Daniel Shechtman wins the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of quasicrystals. (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Winner/s will be announced in about 12 hours.as exciting as the UNGA Gen. Debate. Lihaas (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please let us post this timely. IMO, errors of omission ITN is a worse problem than linking to a somewhat poorly formatted article. Perhaps the readers can even improve the article themselves; this is Wikipedia, you know :). Thue | talk 11:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way the previous Nobel Prizes (Medicine and Physics) are still languishing the the waiting room I've all but washed my hands of the Nobel nominations. The whole process has become ridiculous. Deterence Talk 12:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about reformatting so that it read something like: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded to Daniel Shechtman for the discovery of quasicrystals. I know it might be a little unusual to highlight the discovery rather than the winner, but that looks like a pretty good article. ETA: Actually, looking again at the article, I find it quite hard to work out what a quasicrystal is precisely. Maybe someone could look at that.--FormerIP (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think quasicrystal is the right article; the fact that work in it (specifically, that such crystals do exist in real-life materials) isn't going to be of significant update. It's Shehctman's work that will be the fact.
I think the pattern I'm seeing is that while everyone here agrees that Nobel Prizes are ITN worthy, there's very little that can be said in any of the recipent articles beyond "They won the prize on this date", which seems contradictory to the ITN restriction on having more than the just the blurb be updated in the article. At most, based on the merit of the award, maybe one or two lines can be added to explain why the award was given (which usually any of these articles state, like the medicine one about being towards cancer research), but, say, unlike breaking disasters or the like, that's really all you can add to it. Ergo, I propose that in the case of certain awards, which are based on past success (like Nobels, Oscars, etc.) that we already deem ITN worthy, the idea that the article needs a significant update should be dropped, as long as the event is discussed there. Having ITN point to these articles may help them to grow by those interested in it. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, a sentence or two about the reaction of the laureate or a colleague of him would suffice. Check Andre Geim#Nobel Prize in Physics. There were responses reported last year, a quick search should find some here as well. --Tone 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what's being said. There are certain things that don't need a great deal of updating to report what has happened and it is stupid for us to be slaves to guideline. However, some ITN candidacies come when a relatively obscure person or thing is suddenly thrust into the limelight. What's needed then is "updates" to the background information. Our current article on Dan Shechtman, for example, provides no overview of the achievement for which he has been awarded the prize. It's a shame not to post the news, but someone needs to revamp the article (I would, be I don't even understand the science of it). --FormerIP (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added about 3-4 sentences to establish what quasicrystals are good within Shechtman's article and leading to the Nobel in his article.--MASEM (t) 15:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is exactly what is going on. People need to remember one of the most important rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Thue | talk 15:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's good update in my opinion. A context provided for understanding why he got the prize. Posting. --Tone 15:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David, somehow I have a feeling that we get the same ideas simultaneously... ;-) Now someone please update the articles for physicists and the other two medicine laureates so that we can end this. --Tone 15:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we tripped over each other. (-: —David Levy 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest we pop up that free image of the quasicrystal in the box? Colorful and free enough to be good FP material...--MASEM (t) 16:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Stale] ACTA signed by some

Article: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. (Post)
News source(s): Ars Technica
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The ACTA treaty has been much criticized. For example, it contains an Anti-circumvention provision similar to the one in the much-criticized DMCA. And the Obama administration has tried to keep the treaty secret while being negotiated, claiming "damage to the national security" [having the people actually see the laws their leaders make on their behalf could make them unhappy, you see, and might give the people a chance to influence the process -ed]. Thue

  • Comment The full implications of this Agreement are unclear, in very large part due to the shroud of secrecy that has prevented public scrutiny and commentary during the years of negotiation. For all its high-brow rhetoric about protecting intellectual property rights, the heavy focus on the enforcement provisions in this Treaty suggest a suspiciously draconian objective with serious implications for freedom of expression, a suggestion that is not the least bit tamed by the use of tired jack-booted clichés about the risk of "damage to the national security" that transparency in the negotiation process would provide. However, my concern, before supporting this nomination, is that it simply hasn't had anywhere near enough media attention to qualify it as "notable" by the standards employed by ITN, (the story appears to be buried on page 8, and days late, in most of the media sources I looked at). Deterence Talk 12:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this has not been widely reported. Which puzzles me, because it was my impression that the treaty have been covered in the news regularly before this. My own instinct is that the most important ITN criteria is whether an event is significant, not whether it was widely covered, so I would post it anyway :). It is the signing of a controversial world-wide trade agreement - how could it not be notable? Thue | talk 15:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Thue— I can't really imagine how this would not be significant enough for ITN. And the article is...solid. Swarm 05:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking as stale. While I'd support inclusion, it has already been a week since the event - coupled with the relative lack of media attention this week, I don't think this will come to see ITN. m.o.p 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

October 4, 2011 (2011-10-04) (Tuesday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters
Home Video
International relations

Law and crime
  • The European Court of Justice rules against "the imposition of national borders to sell broadcasting rights on a territory-by-territory basis", as this is in contravention of EU laws on free trade. It would allow members of the public to seek cheaper providers of Premier League football, whilst finding against a landlady who used Greek television to show live football in her public house. (The Guardian)

Politics and elections

Science

Sport

[Alright, alright... pulled] Danish election

Article: Danish parliamentary election, 2011 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The government of Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt takes office following an election in Denmark (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: we usually post the election result but since this wasnt posted, we also have precedent to post it when the government takes office as we did with Peru/Humala. Heck in some cases like Aus/Canada/UK we posted it 2 or eve 3 times Lihaas (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my bad, dont usually do that. just slipped my mind. but i added enough and sourced about the more impotant govt formation bit.Lihaas (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That changes things. Do we normally post election results when the election happens or when the government comes into session? m.o.p 22:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hm,, missed it too.
but weve done it before. Id just change the bolded word to her name instead the election. (though the govt formation stuff is new and current)
Also, like the uk, the anti incumbency and coalition factor, is the bigger news (which was not even there on can/aus)Lihaas (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be pulled. We've already posted this and we knew at that time that Thorning-Schmidt would be PM and that her coalition had won the election. This is not ITN/R, either, and is completely different to the UK/AUS situations. Jenks24 (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we show it ITN again then we should at least link Cabinet of Helle Thorning-Schmidt on "government" as the only really new item, but it may not have quality to be bolded. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. ill add the govt formation there (sa we did with finland)
as for not the same as "aus" its rubbish! the aus one posted THRICE was only diff in that its an eng speaking country.Lihaas (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, of course English speaking countries are going to get a bigger go – it's the English Wikipedia. Secondly, this is completely different to the last Aus election – the Aus election resulted in a hung parliament (for the first time since 1940) and it was not known which party would form government until weeks after the election. We knew that Thorning-Schmidt's coalition had won the balance of power the day the election results came in – completely different. Jenks24 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We seldom know the outcome of an election on election night when the legislature is determined by a system of proportional representation. This is especially the case when a moderate/centre party appears ambivalent between the two major factions in the legislature. In the present case, the support of the Social Liberal Party - which held the balance of power on election night - was by no means certain on election night, (notwithstanding pre-election pledges of support). Indeed, it took over 2 weeks for the coalition government to be formalised. Deterence Talk 23:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per deterence, Jenks2 misses the pt completely. This was NOT decided before, as in aus, as in Finland.
This is also the english wikipedia thats why articles in the english language are posted, not that it gives attention to pander to stereotypes.
although bolding the government/pm instead of the election is a fair compromise?Lihaas (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Deterence, did it really take two weeks? Because we posted on the main page that Thorning-Schmidt had won and that was only two days after the election. To anyone, has anything of significance actually happened since we last posted this? Jenks24 (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The expected thing happened, but it wasn't certain to happen. The original blurb correctly said Helle Thorning-Schmidt is designated to become the first female Prime Minister of Denmark, where designated did not mean that she was merely waiting for her term to begin. If she had an own majority then she could have been Prime Minister within days. Cabinet of Helle Thorning-Schmidt#Government formations mentions the 4 required parties to secure a parliament majority behind Helle Thorning-Schmidt as Prime Minister. They cover a wide spectrum but were united in wanting to overthrow the 10-year old government. She needed time to negotiate a policy platform for the new government and agree on ministers. The negotiations are not public and we don't know whether they actually had a serious risk of falling apart. Government can go much faster in Denmark. 3 of the 4 parties joined the government as expected. One of them is Danish Social Liberal Party, the one farthest to the right of the 4, but they had been in goverment with the incumbent government parties in the 1980's (see Cabinet of Denmark). Now they had to join or support a minority-government relying on the far left Red-Green Alliance (Denmark) for votes. It was uncertain whether they would join the government, support it without joining, or possibly be scared by influence to the Red-Green Alliance and switch sides again (they are known for that in Denmark). By the way, a big story in Denmark (not ITN material) in the days leading up to Thorning-Schmidt taking office was her close ally and expected Finance Minister Henrik Sass Larsen suddenly withdrawing from the coming cabinet after not getting a security clearance (apparently due to a dubious friendship). PrimeHunter (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After fixing some typos and adding a reference, I have linked Cabinet of Helle Thorning-Schmidt in the ITN template since we don't have much real news without it. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we did, in fact, post the election results. It doesn't seem like the admin who posted this was aware of that. I think this should be pulled until the item gains more support as to post something we don't normally post after a single support doesn't seem right. --PlasmaTwa2 00:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because we posted this already, and pull because a government 'taking office' is not ITNR, and even if we gain consensus to post again, it should be done after a regular discussion, not one !vote. Swarm 03:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aus was posted THRICE!!! wHY THE BIAS???Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about, but I didn't play any part in posting another story three times. Swarm 18:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No thi sis ofor heads of govt and heads of state, not parliamentary whips.Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and pull I am a strong supporter of the posting of election results from every sovereign nation, once per election. But unless the difficulty/delay in forming a government is of itself newsworthy beyond the borders of that country (Belgium's delay, unprecedented UK situation), the constitutional enactment of that result is merely a matter of routine. This applies equally to presidential inaugurations/kissing of queen's hands. Posting admin has, one assumes, taken erroneous ITN/R claim on good faith, discussion here suggests it was misapplied, so I'm being bold and removing it. Later note: I'm going to be even BOLDER and post a different note in the header to bring this to admin attention: both the posting admin and the nominator acknowledge a false assumption that was integral to their original position, and the overwhelming consensus of other opinions expressed is to pull. Kevin McE (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AND WHAT ABOUT AUSTRALIA???? WHY THE BIGOTRY>??Lihaas (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled -- tariqabjotu 07:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fIRST you sulk/bitch about "shouting" and wrting a proper note then you post "Alright, alright... pulled"??!!!!Lihaas (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read "Alright, alright... pulled" as being impolite, so I don't see a problem with it. Thue | talk 10:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever was or wasn't posted about the Australian elections doesn't bind us to do the same (or in some people's mind same) thing for every single country on earth. Every situation should looked at separately. And increasing ITN's attention to the politics of a relatively small European nation, no offence to Denmark which I hope to visit soon, will hardly do anything to counter the more serious issues of Systemic bias on Wikipedia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2011 Mogadishu bombing

Article: 2011 Mogadishu bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: At least 65 people have been killed after a suicide attack in Mogadishu, Somalia. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

major expansion and marked ready.Lihaas (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Russia restores GLONASS constellation

Articles: No article specified
Blurb: ​ Russia restores the full satellite constellation of GLONASS, the only global satellite navigation system apart from GPS. (Post)
News source(s): http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/10/03/58065478.html
Credits:

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: There was a successful and notable satellite launch which is WP:ITN/R. GreyHood Talk 09:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC) GreyHood Talk 09:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting. Slightly modifying the blurb, I don't find it necessary to mention GPS. --Tone 16:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to have been posted? Thue | talk 16:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see it. OCNative (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Physics

Articles: No article specified
Blurb: ​ Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam Riess share the Nobel Prize in Physics for discovering that the universe's expansion is accelerating. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Winner/s will be annouinced in less than 12 hours Lihaas (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support blurb. But, note that there is currently only a single unreferenced sentence about the award in each of the Nobel laureates' articles. This should not stop posting in the way it dragged on for yesterday's award. Deterence Talk 11:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know if there's a way to work this in, but the same trio won the 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy for similar discoveries. ("Nobel physics prize honours accelerating Universe find". BBC News. 4 October 2011.) Also I've added the BBC ref to each of the winners' articles. OCNative (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All three articles have had thousands of characters added to them so far. More than doubling the size of the articles for Saul and Schmidt, though less of improvement for Reiss so far. But hopefully this won't take all day to get posted. Dragons flight (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment the award was not shared equally between all. Permutter got half and the others got 25%[54]Lihaas (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this not been posted yet? SPat talk 23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think this is a long wait? They still haven't posted the Nobel Prize for Medicine from the day before (see below). Deterence Talk 23:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the updates, I find them sufficient. Nice work. Explaining the whole story. Posting. --Tone 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[pulled] Italian Wikipedia Strike and Blackout

Article: Italian Wikipedia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Italian Wikipedia users protest Rules on Wiretapping Bill through strike and blackout.

Alternate suggestion by (Ks0stm): The Italian Wikipedia goes on strike in protest against the proposed Wiretapping Bill. (Post)
Credits:

Article needs updating

 -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Come faccio a studiare senza Wikipedia?" (in Italian). Facebook. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
"Wikipedia Shuts Down Italian Site In Response To Berlusconi's New Wiretap Act". Business Insider. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
"Ddl intercettazioni, il Pdl apre Wikipedia si ferma per protesta" (in Italian). La Stampa. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
"Salviamo Wikipedia - Petizioni Online - Raccolta Firme" (in Italian). Petizioni Online. Retrieved 2011-10-04.
"Intercettazioni, Wikipedia protesta homepage in bianco: "Inaccettabile ddl"" (in Italian). Retrieved 2011-10-04.
Jimmy Wales on Twitter: Wikipedia Italy is on strike against an idiotic proposed law
Sue gardner about the WMF position on this topic (foundation-l) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baruneju (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There probably will be more examples. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
More sources:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/225125/20111004/italian-wikipedia-shutdown-shuts-down-new-wiretapping-wiretap-act-silvio-berlisconi-italy.htm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20115615-93/italian-language-wikipedia-hidden-may-shut-down/
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 03:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Now also covered by
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15192757
Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/berlusconis-vow-to-crack-down-on-wiretaps-triggers-anger-wikipedia-protests-via-italian-site/2011/10/05/gIQAumenNL_story.html
Reuters (India): http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-italy-privacy-idUSTRE79443S20111005
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Some german sources, just to document the international media coverage:
[55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose navel-gazing. The response of the Italian Wikipedia may be of interest to us but is minor to the World. If anything should be in the news (I don't think so) then it should be about the proposed bill and mention protests generally without mentioning Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...theres no chance of this going anywhere without an article. the english wikipedia wont link to the italian one, esp on the main page.Lihaas (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is the Italian Wikipedia article. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
93 456 articles on the issue already. Concerns us? Yes. Minor? I do not think so. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The surge of Italian media coverage is mostly about the Wikipedia strike rather than the bill itself. Don't underestimate the global importance of Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the link above was a search for wikipedia on google news .it. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support After reading the meta-discussion and a few articles on the topic, it's clear this is way more than something that affects only Wikipedia. An online petition started today against the law already has over 1000 signatures. Here is another article on the topic. And if I'm reading it correctly, this law goes cross-borders because it deals with content deemed detrimental to any Italian citizen, irrespective of where that content is hosted. The end effect would be that all of Wikimedia would have to be blocked in Italy to prevent Wikimedia from being sued at $16,000 a pop. N419BH 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like the way it is structured is anyone could get you fined 12k euros without even providing any evidence that what you put on the site as hurtful. The laws extent is hardly restricted to Italian wikipedia. Any editor to any wiki could be fined. I am unsure if the bills extend is restricted to Italian nationals. Only one person cannot be fined by this and that's Berlisconi as he gave himself immunity from the law. Wikipedia could easily be the encyclopedia only Berlisconi could edit. :p I am not necessarily happy with the current wording mind you, if anyone has a better wording I would not object (probably). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 03:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am very much intrigued by what the Italian Wikipedians are doing, but I don't think we should be promoting our own project's controversies on the front page of en like this. It's basically naval gazing, and using the front page to further our own agenda. Resolute 03:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand the point of this protest. If Italy passes such law, how will it affect Wikipedia servers located in the Netherlands or Florida, USA? Wikipedia(s) should, in my view, not engage themselves in political debate, and the Foundation's goal is to provide access to free information to all people, including those living in undemocratic and repressive regimes like Berlusconi's Italy. By same reasoning, all Wikipedias should show a blunt political manifesto to visitors from North Korea and block access to all articles. --hydrox (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but what about Wikipedians who live in Italy and are therefore subject to Italian law? Jenks24 (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not know how the law affects us for certain which is the problem. Because the law is drafted as vague as possible and fines are enforced based on victims request without involving any kind of proof anyone could be subjected to the law for any edit even those of us that lives outside of Italy. Of course Italy wouldn't be able to enforce this outside of Italy currently but bear in mind some countries have agreements between each other to exchange criminals and EU/NATO is working to harmonize handling of crime over the internet. This is the basis of the concern. Italy is a democracy unlike North Korea so the protest may make a difference. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Navel-gazing", as per above, is a very appropriate term. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting piece of news. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Freedom of expression and of the press is important, and Wikipedia is an important organization in that regard. So this is newsworthy. That Wikipedia is involved doesn't detract from the newsworthiness. Of course the blurb should not link to Wikipedia meta-pages. Thue | talk 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not believe we have an article on the act or on the blackout and as I mentioned before, if anyone has a better wording I'd be happy to oblige. :) -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This is making headlines all over the world, I can provide tens of articles covering this issue in Dutch at least. Definitely more noteworthy than some local US super-bawlish event that we find very often on the frontage.--Rafy talk 12:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - see below. Actually, I don't think it is navel-gazing. But it may look like that to readers, so not a good idea. --FormerIP (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Navel-gazing or not, we don't decide what's in the news - ITN just reflects what is. And this blackout is covered by many many news sources (even here in Germany now ([62], [63], [64], [65] etc.)). Regards SoWhy 15:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I wanted to just write "navel-gazing" and figured it was going to be somewhat original, turns out it wasn't. Anyway, one website being mass-blanked in protest in a smallish country isn't really front page material.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we should promote Wikipedia news, even more so if they are everywhere in the news. Crnorizec (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The protest would have to gather a huge amount of press before I would consider it appropriate to feature another Wikipedia on ITN. So far, it has gathered only a very small amount as far as I can see. If it were any other Italian website I doubt that it would even have been nominated here. Dragons flight (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is over 500+300 Italian sources (alone) despite Berlisconi being a media boss. What is a "huge amount" in your opinion? This isn't US news only you know. World news matters. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    There are only 48 reports in English per [66]. We do want to cover world events, but generally only when they are substantially expressed in the English speaking press, since English speakers are our audience. I'm sure the story matters to many Italians and Italian speakers, but I don't see it as having much broader press. I'm still opposed. Dragons flight (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For broadly similar reasons as Dragons flight above, who ec'd my original and said it better than I. Whilst I have no doubt lots of RS can be dug out from the internet, it seems that a number of major news sources haven't even got a whisper of it (BBC for example). Pedro :  Chat  19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Unprecedented and notable, also mentioned by BBC among other news outlets, so it is getting picked up by major news sources. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What is done in german, netherland an danish wp should also be done on en:wp -- Andreas Werle (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notwithstanding my personal opinion that we should be doing this anyway, it has hit mainstream media such as the BBC now. —WFC— 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a very important information about Wikipedia itself. The Protest has been featured by most european media. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ITN does not give precedence to Wikipedia news. from a NPOV this would never make it to ITN -- Ashish-g55 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are advocating that we deliberately ignore a mainstream news story because it has something to do with Wikipedia, which in itself is a POV. NPOV is about reconciling different perspectives in order to achieve neutral, factual coverage. Provided we do that, and this story meets the criteria that all others have to, Wikipedia's involvement does not come into it. —WFC— 23:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment does not say that at all. I clearly stated that if looking from a NPOV as in if this was some other site doing similar thing we would never post it. This is a protest, We have not actually stopped italian wikipedia. I highly doubt protests by any other site would get any supports here. So yes this is only being posted because its wikipedia. -- Ashish-g55 23:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Posting. This has wide coverage and a (narrow) consensus to post. Having said that, DDL intercettazioni needs to be expanded please. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 10 support and 8 oppose (9 including myself) is not by any stretch of the imagination 'consensus'. This does not belong in ITN and looks far too much like self-obsession (navel-gazing if you prefer). TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • even though this isnt a vote. I dont see consensus at all. Ed you have done this many times before now... Please warn before posting controversial topics. A simple Posting soon would have helped. I dont see consensus at all by reading above comments. This is not a poll -- Ashish-g55 23:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I partially discounted opposes based on little coverage and 'naval gazing'. The first was disproved by later coverage, and the second has no basis in the ITN criteria. Given that and the strength of certain supports, I judged that this had enough support. I don't count the !votes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you also discount support votes based on 'interesting' or 'we should support Wikipedia'? These aren't valid arguments either. I am aware it's not a vote (I quoted the numbers above for a broad overview) but I simply do not see any consensus to post here. The concerns raised by oppose votes is valid, Wikipedia is not intended to create news. Running this is self-serving and strongly appears to be attempting to further an agenda, which is something Wikipedia has for years strived to not have the appearance of having. Our interests are in furthering knowledge and learning, not to be used as a platform for political posturing. A posting like this is, in my view, completely inappropriate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • i almost never support pulling an item. But i agree with above, this really seems like agenda pushing by wikipedia. All we do here (at ITN/C) is debate the notability of items since we want it to be high for it to make it to ITN. How is this notable? nobody has properly shown that yet. Please pull till this gains consensus. -- Ashish-g55 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Navel-gazing" doesn't have to be in the guideline, it just has to be a valid reason, which it is. This was an inappropriate call. --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am inclined to agree. This is notable enough to have made it international news ranging from Washington Post to BBC and all the way to Reuters India. It is hardly a local Italian or an internal Wikipedia issue. Just because Wikipedia is in the news doesn't mean it should forever be off of ITN. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
              • It's in the international news because the Italian WP threw a tantrum and then very publicly drew attention to that tantrum. We could achieve the same thing here by shutting down the English WP and leaving a message about how some hypothetical new bill in front of the US Congress might increase the cost of bandwidth, thus increasing Wikipedia's hosting costs. The point is that the event and its notability are fabricated by Wikipedians, which flies completely in the face of what we stand for in terms of neutrality and observation. Again, it's not our purpose to create news, and the Italian Wikipedia has undermined the efforts of the project globally by taking the action that they've taken. We shouldn't be propagating their agenda. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong post-posting oppose. Notability is rather lacking, english language coverage rather spotty, and stuff like this is better fit for signpost. I remember in the past someone mentioned not posting any Wikipedia-related items on ITN, and I think items like that give credence to the argument. SpencerT♦C 01:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose on procedural grounds and suggest pulling. There is no consensus, period. An admin cannot simply disregard all comments that he disagree with when he is determining a consensus, unless they are obviously contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise, there is little point for us "mortal beings" to participate in the discussion. JimSukwutput 01:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? As an admin, I'm supposed to read the discussion, determine the strength of the arguments, and make a decision. That's what I did. I also don't believe "Wikipedia-related material should never be on ITN" is a valid argument based on the ITN criteria. If there is consensus on WT:ITN that we should never post this sort of news, then it becomes a much more valid argument. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's been almost unanimous opposition (4/1) since the posting that both the consensus was misread and that the item shouldn't have been posted. Ed, it appears your choice is being questioned, could you please review your decision? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, please review your decision. I actually don't mind the story being there, but it seems like an egregious decision against consensus. You are indeed supposed to read the votes and determine the strength of the arguments. Not read the votes and dismiss the ones you don't like. The "navel- gazing" argument, even though I don't actually agree with it, is a perfectly reasonable argument made by a number of editors whose votes do count. --FormerIP (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-oppose I was neutral all day on this, but one of the opposes above changed my mind. This story was completely caused by the actions of Italian wikipedians. Plus, it's only a proposed bill. Maybe we could reconsider if the Italian site is forced to shut down, but this is premature. As an aside, I'm tagging this as needing re-evaluation. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pulling this as there are now more opposes which throw consensus into doubt. I still reiterate, though, that opposes built on "we shouldn't post stuff about Wikipedia" were and should be discounted. Saying "it's not important enough" and backing that up is one thing. Saying that we can't ever post something from a certain topic, no matter its importance, holds no water under the current ITN criteria. The same goes for the supports that advocated for posting more Wikipedia-related content. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the reasons Wikipedia has never had hard-and-fast rules is to allow the flexibility of the community to make decisions based on context without being hindered by necessarily broad restrictions in the form of rules that attempt to apply to all situations. The community does not need to ratify a separate overarcing decision that 'Wikipedia should not itself appear in ITN' in order to decide whether this particular event should be on ITN.
I strongly disagree with your assessment that the opinions of editors should be discarded if they don't conform specifically to guidance that, itself, was determined by consensus. As you're no doubt aware, consensus can change and editors have always been free to determine local consensus that may contradict broader guidance (examples include the naming of controversial articles by consensus contrary to standard naming policies, or local style changes contrary to the MOS). It's not appropriate to discard the view of editors here that this topic - an event caused by Wikipedians, no less - would be inappropriate for inclusion, simply on the basis that the existing guidelines don't have anything explicit to say on the matter.
The guidelines are there to help guide consensus, not to dictate consensus. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize they are they to help guide consensus, and that's what I used them for. :-) "Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content." I realize that not all situations can be covered by that sentence (e.g. pop culture items get opposition for other reasons), but I didn't think that a blanket oppose of all Wikipedia-related material, with little or no commentary on the individual event in question, is valid reasoning for the purposes of ITN. As we can see, people disagree with my assessment, but administrators are forced to do this all the time on this page, at the various deletion processes, in RfCs, and elsewhere. Unfortunately, we can only rarely please everyone involved, and occasionally we may read a consensus wrong. I'm not quite ready to admit that my reasoning was flawed, but I can clearly see that there may be problems with it, so that's why I removed this item from ITN. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of some users is quite emberassing and shameful. The italian community fights for its project and some users here tell them to be happy with censorship. This comes close to treason. People who do not support the projects basic ideas should not complain, if they can not tollerate the demand for the freedom of speech, they should not participate. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a load of tripe. Arguing that this is not appropriate for ITN is not the same as telling them "to be happy with censorship". In fact, your argument offers a very strong argument against posting this: We should not be using ITN to advocate a position. No matter how much we support our peers at it.wikipedia - and one would be a fool to actually believe any body here does not). Resolute 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Multiparagraph - Tenebris start) Yet taking it down at this point has even more problems than leaving it up! There was not full consensus for putting it up (and bluntly, full consensus never happens) -- but there also was not consensus for *unposting* it. The current voices now misrepresent the whole, for those who wrote in favour and already saw it posted -- implying a final decision -- won't know to come back here and continue the discussion until they check in again on the front page, presumably after sleep; and others who don't check everyday may not even know that there is a reason to come here and look further down beyond the current date.

Navelgazing - not! It is fully as self-absorbed to deliberately underplay news about oneself as to overplay it. Not to post it suggests a deliberate personal blind spot, somewhat comes across as a tacit rebuke to Italian Wikipedia, and may even come close to self-censorship. The action is newsworthy and ITN-worthy in its own right, based solely on its historic value and impact. Try a test - a site not linked with Wikipedia but of equivalent value, size, and traffic to Italian Wikipedia shuts down to protest a law, in part because it feels threatened by that law. The action is unique and unprecedented, is clearly not a short-term hiccough, and is covered by most major media outlets on the continent.

Yet at the same time, to answer the poster just above me (with whom I edit-conflicted) -- and possibly a fair number of the initial objectors -- ITF is not a union action. Either an event is ITF-noteworthy or it is not. It should make no difference whether or not another branch of Wikipedia is involved. The current event happens to be both current events noteworthy and historic on a significant scale. For that reason and that reason alone, the ITF news article should stay up.

The uncomfortable point is that this time, it happened to be the "reporters" who made the news. That is *always* an uncomfortable point for any news outlet. (Remember "sweating like a Fox reporter covering Rupert Murdoch and the cellphone hacking scandal"?) Nevertheless, noteworthy events are noteworthy regardless of whether reporters happen to be involved in them or even cause them. A significant event does not become non-significant just because reporters or editors happened to be behind it. The current strike by Italian Wikipedia has a widespread effect (it doesn't have to be a shut-down-the-city type of effect) and it also crossed an unprecedented line. It is acknowledged as such in the mainstream media. As such, it meets all the requirements of ITN. - Tenebris 207.112.29.219 (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I'll change by vote to support, just on the basis that I don't really mind it going up (note: also not a policy-based reason). But the problem isn't whether or not this should pass, it's calling a dubious consensus on something (a WP-related news story) that really ought to have a very clear consensus before it is posted.
I'd add that it is also not about supporting or not supporting Italian WP. In fact, I think posting an ITN blurb is a pretty lame gesture. We ought to be redirecting Silvio Berlusconi to Toilet paper orientation, but we're just too conservative and not clear enough about what's going on. --FormerIP (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any form of sympathy with the colleagues in Italy would have been more welcome and more courageous. -- Andreas Werle (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

October 3, 2011 (2011-10-03) (Monday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters
  • Eight people are injured following an explosion and fire at a factory in Surrey, United Kingdom. (BBC)

Law and crime

Politics

Science

Sport

Knox and Sollecito verdict overturned

Article: Murder of Meredith Kercher (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ On appeal, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are acquitted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Telegraph
Credits:

Oppose Although large portions of the media have given disproportionate attention to this case, there is nothing intrinsic to the case that demands more attention than any of untold thousands of murders around the world in any given year. Just because the anglophone media go weak-kneed about how a case where both the victim and the accused/convicted/acquitted are good looking middle class white women, we do not have to do so. The fact that the proposer, and the headline in the news source that he/she links to, make no mention of Raffaele Sollecito speaks volumes as to the grounds of attention to this story. Kevin McE (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - if Raffaele is included. this is a major story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Of international interest, with this featured on the front page of BBC, la Rebpubblica, CNN, news.com.au, NZ Herald, etc. Agree that the other guy should be included in the blurb as well. (Edit: I was also unaware that we featured the conviction and have switched to strong support (FWIW). See my comments below.) Swarm 20:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kevin McE. As he says, the media attention is almost entirely explained by the fact that Knox is "good looking middle class white women". Similar media attention was brought to the case of the attractive Australian girl, Schapelle Corby, while the cases of countless other defendants (less attractive men) are all but ignored. That said, I'm willing to be persuaded if anyone points to precedents where high profile criminal trials were posted into ITN. Edit: Support Editor Dragons flight has revealed (below) that the original conviction of Knox was posted in ITN two years ago. Justice requires that we pay equal attention to her subsequent exoneration. I'm a little surprised that this important piece of back-story wasn't mentioned earlier. Deterence Talk 20:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, with a question I too see this as trivial media pap, but since this sort of item inevitably arises from time to time, do we actually have a formal guideline that says we don't post stories that are really gossip column filler? (I could probably propose a new Hollywood wedding/divorce/baby story every week.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "trivial media pap" sums it up well. Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no significance to this event, as opposed to "international interest". I think it is that word in the relevant guidelines that cuts out the kind of stories to which HiLo48 refers. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is rather hard of ITN to oppose this given that it was just two weeks ago that another cause celebre was posted - Troy Davis. I wonder if the West Memphis Three was posted too? Resolute 20:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You raise an excellent point. And Swarm raised some good examples, also (above). But, I wonder if we might distinguish those criminal trials/sentences that have notable political implications (such as the conviction of an internationally recognised political official) from those that are nothing more than fodder for trashy magazines? Deterence Talk 20:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to know where to draw the line. What is the real significance of all the sporting events we post? What is the significance of that Harry Potter film that we posted? We can't pretend like we only post major events with serious real-world implications, because we don't. Is this story significant in that it will effect the grand scheme of the universe? Of course not. However, is it significant in that it's front page news all over the world? Yeah, I would say so. Swarm 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I opposed the Troy Davis story, that differs significantly from this in as much as the execution was carried out in the face of specific and focussed attention from significant world figures. That gave it a significance and gravitas that this story (despite the obviously serious nature of a murder and lengthy potential incarceration) lacks. The Davis story differed from any other failed appeal on the basis of intervention of authoritative figures: the Kercher/Knox case differs from any other successful appeal on the basis of ability of the photos to shift newspapers. Kevin McE (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will absolutely rue the day that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS becomes policy. Until then, it is still an essay.--WaltCip (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"other stuff exists policy" Facepalm Facepalm . Swarm 01:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing significant about this case. A person was convicted of murder and the conviction was later overturned. Big deal. This happen many times during a year. And Western media always love to print stories about pretty white girls, be it missing person cases or criminal cases.—Chris!c/t 21:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No particular view, but this is clearly a big news story, so ought to be considered. However, as a veteran of the article, I can say that it has traditionally been in right old state in terms of POV warring. I haven't read it in a while, but think caution should be exercised. --FormerIP (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't really our job to decide whether a story is newsworthy. The international media do that for us. Our job is to identify quality Wikipedia content that can inform and educate the public on a topic that many of them have already become interested in because of all the news. We aren't a news ticker, rather we are a different kind of resource that at the best of times can provide broader background and more details than 99 out of 100 news reports. And at the same time, hopefully we can promote some of Wikipedia's best work. We have a long and detailed article on the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and I for one support using this occasion to highlight that. It is true that there are many cases worldwide that don't get similar news exposure, and that is a shame. However, it is also true that there are many cases that don't have a similar level of Wikipedia coverage, and we should be prepared to highlight good articles when we have them. As a minor additional point, the conviction of Knox and Sollecito appeared in ITN two years ago when it occurred, and there is perhaps a certain degree of fairness in also covering the overturning of that conviction. Dragons flight (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a fair point. As is the argument that the article has been used as a platform to push a POV in the past, and likely, the present. I guess the best question, from those who watch it far closer than I, is whether the article is in a state that we are willing to present on our front page? Resolute 22:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dragons flight, "As a minor additional point, the conviction of Knox and Sollecito appeared in ITN two years ago when it occurred...". That is no minor point. That information has convinced me to change my vote (above) to Support. Deterence Talk 22:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Support I will do the rare thing here and actually support a nomination because this clearly is not going to get posted based on the current trend. I always get this bad taste in my mouth when people show up here with the idea that our job here is present what should be in the news, rather than what actually is. Yeah, so the fact that there's a young white girl involved is contributing to its prevalence in the media. So what? If that's what's in the news, so be it. Have you not heard the phrase dog bites man -- not news; man bites dog -- news? Same applies here. A dude with a long criminal history being accused on killing a random man is not as big a story as a couple young students with no criminal history being accused of killing a roommate. Add to that the fact that the victim and accused are from three different countries, and that the accused are finally determined to be innocent... um... hello? How is that not a reasonable news story? I understand that the Wikipedia editor demographic is too hipster to be into stories like this, but, what you want to be in the news isn't what always is In the News. Provided we get a reasonable update (which is not to hard to conjure up, frankly), this deserves to be on ITN. Or are Nobel prizes the only important things that go on this week? -- tariqabjotu 22:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is plainly a huge story that has been building to this final conclusion for freaking years. Vranak (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tariq and Dragons Flight sum it up nicely. This is getting major press, and it appeared on ITN when they were convicted, so logic holds that it should be posted now. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I respect the reasons for supporting but I really, really press onto you the importance of taste and decency here. We're not talking about an unprecedented miscarriage of justice. The media have turned these two into celebrities, pushing the deceased victim into the background. Wiki is better than that. Is it really necessary to award front page status to this event? How do we deal with the issue of a dead woman whose murder has been essentially relegated to second place behind that of a court room drama? doktorb wordsdeeds 00:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with focusing on the living rather than the dead. Their fate is still indeterminate. Vranak (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dragons Flight's "minor" point, which is actually a rather crucial aspect of this discussion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It was removed after two and a half hours. -- tariqabjotu 01:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has made international front page news now is this, the fact that the Daily Mail got it completely wrong. That's definitely front page news here in Melbourne, Australia. (Admittedly, as the place where Rupert Murdoch grew up and where his mum still lives, we pay attention to British newspaper dramas.) Can I post this stuffup as an ITN item? HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Tariqabjotu. C628 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per arguments above. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Significant coverage? Yeah, lots of it. Tabloid fodder? Yup. But in the end this case has been massively sensationalized by the media because the two ladies involved are young, middle class, and attractive. There's basically no mention of the guy. Add in sex, drugs and rock and roll and you have a perfect headliner that's great for attracting viewers so you can charge more to advertisers for the commercials. The international nature, a Brit an Italian and an American also add to the general hoopla. But in the end, there's really nothing important here. Why don't we focus on the protests in the middle east that are currently toppling governments rather than this crap. N419BH 06:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree this isn't news and that the only reason it has got this much coverage is that the demographics of the victim and alleged perpetrator appeal to the market for newspapers. The case isn't comparable to most of the examples mentioned above in that the alleged perpetrator is not a high-profile politician, the crime itself wasn't particularly remarkable and the coverage is not focused on wider social issues such as the death penalty. However we did post the conviction and it's only fair that we post the acquittal. Hut 8.5 10:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis of significance. Nightw 14:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since I am inclined to doubt the real significance of this recent event (i.e. the success of a court appeal) compared to that of other recent news stories such as record ozone depletion being reported over the Arctic. SuperMarioMan 14:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose To those who say we posted the conviction so it's only fair that we post the acquittal: the conviction was more than 18 months ago. Since that time, ITN has gotten better, including if I recall correctly, not posting the acquittal of Casey (Anderson/Anthony?). As you can see, I care very little about tabloid fodder. That's a trend we should be continuing. NW (Talk) 20:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept here isn't 'we posted tabloid fodder two years ago, so we should post it now', it's 'we featured the conviction of a person on Wikipedia's front page, and they turned out to be innocent, so in the interest of basic, basic fairness, we should feature the acquittal of that person as well. We posted the dismissal of the Strauss-Kahn case with these considerations two months ago: we posted his arrest, so we posted his release. We should do the same here. Should we have posted this originally? That's debatable, but should we post this in fairness? I absolutely think so. (Although I think this can be posted on its own merits as an international, front page news story anyway.) Swarm 02:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was one of those who supported posting DSK's acquittal and I agreed that one of the good reasons is because we posted his charges. However, I do not think the same reasoning applies here. DSK was the head of the IMF and a leading politician in France who was widely expected to be elected president. The accusations made against him had a huge international impact - in terms of the financial health of Europe; in terms of the relations between France and the U.S.; and so on. That's the kind of stuff that I imagine would still be on Wikipedia ten years from now. These two college kids, however - I don't even think anyone will remember who they are a generation from now on. And I don't think Wikipedia should post something on the main page that will be virtually forgotten in a matter of years. JimSukwutput 23:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's in the news, it's getting attention, and we have a Wikipedia article on it. What bothers me is the cries of "missing white woman syndrome" and our beliefs that by not posting this story we'll somehow be averting a tenet of media sensationalism. Unfortunately, that also means that we will set a precedence of deliberately avoiding posting stories of this sort no matter how significant they are, thus committing systemic bias in the opposite direction. I feel that MWSS is not valid grounds for opposing this particular candidate, and that this would not be a precedence worth setting in WP:ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it about time someone made a decision one way or another? Just put the damn thing up I say -- it's starting to become old news. Vranak (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. WP:NOTNEWS. Personally, I don't even think a trivial case like this deserves an article. Think of how many people get murdered each day - we will have hundreds of thousands of article just about specific murders if we were consistent about our "notability" guidelines. But I'm not going to propose an AfD because I know Wikipedia can never be a project truly based on long-term significance rather than spontaneous sensationalism. Putting this on the front page, however, is simply out of the question for me. JimSukwutput 23:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Nobel Prize in Medicine

Articles: No article specified
Blurb: ​ Bruce A. Beutler, Jules A. Hoffmann, and Ralph M. Steinman share the Nobel Prize for Medicine for their discoveries regarding the immune system (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article needs updating
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Winners are due to be announced in the next hour or so. Modest Genius talk 09:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, such a blurb would be extremely long and thus impractical for ITN. Any suggestion to make it shorter? As for the bolded article, I guess all three laureates get that. --Tone 10:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The articles need some more work, indeed. --Tone 10:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the sourcing in the articles, but they do need longer updates. OCNative (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that blurb is a good way to summarise the situation. I've added it to the template above. Modest Genius talk 11:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the shortest version of the blurb is fine. Let me know when the updates are sufficient so that I can post it. --Tone 14:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but makes the blurb rather long... Modest Genius talk 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will point out that there's the issue that Steinman dies last Friday, and the Nobel committee is trying to figure out what to do here (since the 70s, they don't give awards posthumously.) [68] Buetler and Hoffman will still get their half, but there's no decision (that I see) about Steinman's portion. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally Nobels are allowed to be awarded posthumously iff the recipient dies after the decision is made, but before it is announced. Either way, it doesn't really affect our blurb. Modest Genius talk 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally yes, as the stories pointed out in 1931 and 1961 they happened. But as these stories are pointing out, they changed the ruling in 1970s, and this situation falls into that crack. I very much doubt the Nobel committee will reverse their decision of that award, but there's a chance it could. I don't think this should stop the blurb being posted, but we need to be award it may need changing later today due to this. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the Nobel Committee has decided to let the award stand as is. [69] I would recommend that we should add ("posthumously") to the blurb for Steinman once the articles are updated - that might drive more eyes to that page as well. --MASEM (t) 17:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 16:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled. As discussed above, the articles have not yet received sufficient updates. —David Levy 16:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will be posted after the articles are updated, yes? Also, if that takes a day, should we have one blurb for Physiology and Medicine/Physics? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is how much of an update we can get for the articles. I believe not every laureate will have an extensive section on reaction to the award etc. And, in some short articles (2/3 here), such a section would be disproportionate. Ok, sure, for peace prize, there are usually long articles written afterwards but not so much for the other ones. --Tone 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have much time to wait until any other laureates are announced. For the reader the news is most important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now I see some more update at Steinman's article, about the fact that he passed away before the award was announced and about the consequent questions. Reposting. As for other two, there is at least a minimum update, so all the laureates stay bolded. Wouldn't make sense the other way. Still, for other awards this week, we should write more update from the beginning. --Tone 21:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a news website. ITN isn't a news ticker. —David Levy 22:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but something that would rather draw attention on the news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? —David Levy 22:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but this leads to an off-topic discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it, but I don't know what you mean. —David Levy 22:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support re-posting I see all the articles are substantially updated. More likely the article about Steinman is too short, but well referenced on the other hand.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To what substantial updates are you referring? Apart from Steinman's article (which contains information about his death and the accidental posthumous award), I see nothing but bare mentions that the Nobel Prize was awarded (the same as earlier). Per Wikipedia:In the news#Criteria, "updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient." —David Levy 21:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I didn't see that, editing at the same time, apparently... well, no more handling this item from my side. --Tone 21:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to wheel war, so I've de-bolded the links to the two articles that haven't been substantially updated. Logically, however, the item should be pulled until they have been. —David Levy 22:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. The articles all mention the reception of the Nobel Peace Prize, and that's the core thing we need to post this. Or if you're referring to the current shape of these articles, it's another problem that should be resolved on the particular discussion pages. I don't intend to post this regardless of the criteria managing the articles in the blurb, but seems like we have reached the sufficiency.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient." The blurb "[mentions] the reception of the Nobel Peace Prize," and the articles contain virtually no additional relevant information. ITN's primary purpose is to link to articles that provide such information, not to report news. —David Levy 22:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here I agree completely. The reason I put it back was that one of the articles actually has that sufficient update we need. David, a nice compromise with de-bolding the other two. Could look a bit unconventional to have just one bolded but that's what's the standard way. --Tone 22:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. De-bolding is a really good solution, and now it seems many of our readers can assume Steinman's death beyond his bolded article in the blurb without mentioning it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I don't understand what you've written. —David Levy 22:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the item could be reworded to make the inconsistent bolding seem less odd (particularly to someone unfamiliar with the section's criteria). —David Levy 22:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the wording to reflect Steinman's death, thereby drawing an actual distinction between the other two recipients and him:
Ralph M. Steinman is posthumously awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, shared with Bruce A. Beutler and Jules A. Hoffmann.
—David Levy 22:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply put "(posthumously)" after Steinman's name in the blurb? Your revised blurb makes Steinman look like the principle recipient and the other two look like a couple of also-rans. Deterence Talk 23:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, he was: Steinman was awarded half the prize money, the other two splitting the other half. However, I think the point here is that most of the update about this news is right now in the Steinman article due to his untimely passing. Thus it is, for all that materials, the most significant article of the news blurb. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. I agree with Deterence. Steinman was not the principle recipient, technically or not. You said it yourself, he got half the prize money and the other half was shared between Beutler and Hoffman and their position should not be belittled because of that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Therequiembellishere and Deterence, this current form is misleading because it seems to implicate that Steinman was the principal recipent of the price. Usually Nobel prizes are not enumerated like this in brief writing (including official website). I would suggest following blurb instead: Nobel Prize in Medicine is awarded to Bruce A. Beutler, Jules A. Hoffmann and Ralph M. Steinman for their research in immunity. --hydrox (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...which would leave readers scratching their heads as to why Steinman's article has a bold link and the other two recipients' articles don't. (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is ineligible, as it contains no substantial update.)
Masem accurately described the situation above. No one is belittling Beutler and Hoffmann, but their articles haven't been sufficiently updated. Given the circumstances, my preference was (and remains) to simply pull the item. This is a compromise (reflecting the only element generating a substantial article update: the accidental posthumous award). —David Levy 02:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it really takes a trained eye to understand that Steinman is the only highlighted item because the news here is that a Nobel prize was awarded posthumously, not because he made the most significant contribution. (He did not make any more "significant" contribution than the other two combined. The prize was given to two research projects with "equal" merits whatsoever, "personal portions" of contribution or prize money seem entirely irrelevant, and these people will go to history as sharing this price) There is a wealth of material available to update the articles with, and chances are those will be incorporated soon. I would tend to invoke WP:IAR here over rigorous clinging to ITNC thresholds in hopes this will encourage proper incorporation of material to the articles, as the Nobel prize is a pretty significant ITN event. --hydrox (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that "the news here is that a Nobel prize was awarded posthumously." I'm noting that we have no substantial article update focusing on anything other than that element. If this information is insignificant, we have nothing justifying the item's existence (so it should be pulled). We can't simultaneously cite a lone update and ignore its content.
The community has consistently rejected invocations of IAR based on that rationale (encouraging article updates after the fact). Otherwise, the exception would swallow the rule. —David Levy 04:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am finally starting to get it. a) I disagree the item should be pulled, as Nobel prizes are trivially ITN-worthy, b) but there is a disagreement on threshold of update. On the other hand, c) the current blurb highlights a non-significant aspect of this year's award, and d) it was already pulled once! So maybe it should be once again pulled until we have consensus on posting the real thing (not the side story)? --hydrox (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no dispute that Nobel Prizes are ITN-worthy. They're listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items (and therefore automatically qualify for inclusion, assuming that the requisite article updates occur).
I've believed from the start that the item should be pulled until all three recipients' articles have received substantial updates. Do I understand correctly that you prefer this course of action to the current compromise? —David Levy 04:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the only feasible course of action to fix the current situation (of a misleading blurb), yes I do (but hope to see it eventually reposted as articles get updated.) --hydrox (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've pulled the blurb, but I want to make it clear that I'm in no way suggesting that this decision is set in stone. I'm doing my best to honor consensus (which is subject to change) within the confines of our rules, not to impose my will. —David Levy 05:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ed: leaving out (posthumously) altogether, because Nobel committee statement shows that actually the price was given "in good faith" prehumously. Thus, the side story of this being actually posthumous award, is a mistake, which is however not important in the mind of the committee. --hydrox (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The award wasn't intended to be posthumous, but it is. We can't elaborate on the circumstances in the blurb, but the article accomplishes this (and that's the only substantial update that it has!). —David Levy 02:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to stay above, if you read the Nobel foundation press release, it seems that they don't consider this posthumous award, because they were not aware of his passing when making the decision. [70] --hydrox (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that. And while the foundation can record the award in the manner of its choosing, it can't alter reality. "Posthumous" means "occurring after one's death." While this was unintentional, Steinman factually was awarded the Nobel Prize after his death. —David Levy 04:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved request for admin attention
Administrator attention provided. —David Levy 02:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. You "attended" to your own arbitrary decision. Deterence Talk 02:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying that my determination is sacrosanct. Numerous administrators watch this page. If one believes that I'm incorrect to decline a request that we bold-link another article lacking a substantial update, we'll take it from there. —David Levy 02:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, could please stop commenting on everything that happens here. Isn't it up to me to decide if the level of attention was satisfactory? The conflict-seeking mode is good for some articles, but I don't find it constructive on collaborative pages like this. --hydrox (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you addressing Deterence or me? —David Levy 04:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deterence (the indentation is correct). --hydrox (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. My apologies for initially assuming otherwise. —David Levy 04:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An error of omission is just as bad as an error of insufficient updates to the articles. This is news, and we should post it! Thue | talk 10:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the event's newsworthiness is undisputed. But Wikipedia isn't a news website and ITN isn't a news ticker. When bold-linked article provide little or no relevant information beyond what's stated in the blurbs, the section isn't serving its primary purpose; it's simply reporting news.
    Any "error of omission" lies in the articles. —David Levy 14:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I strongly agree with the others. David, we all tend to reach the sufficient quality, but your role in this discussion is far from being proper. You've pulled out the blurb without any comment, and you're permanently referring to a criterion that leads to your own decision. Unfortunately, the most radical step you're doing here is the use of your admin rights against the others commenting. Even if you're right that's not the right way to react on a page like this, where the main principle is to respect other thoughts and not to thrust upon with yours. Sorry, but if you're here to comment, please come down and do it as we, the other "mortals" do; else it's a real waste of time to discuss with someone who claims power. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, stop. If half of the effort spent here would be used to improve the articles in question, we'd be posting medicine and physics prize by now. --Tone 16:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seems like a hard task to edit the articles according to some 5 sentence or what not update criterion without undue-weight problems (including neutrality if other researchers' studies are ignored). The biological parts kind of need to go in the biology aricles rather than the biographies. Narayanese (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that no major article updates are called for. In such a case, no ITN item is called for either. The section's primary purpose is to link to encyclopedia articles created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events, not to report news. That the Nobel Prize award announcements are big news doesn't automatically mean that they belong on the front page of an encyclopedia. —David Levy 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled by your claim that I "pulled out the blurb without any comment." I've explained my actions and engaged others from the start.
I'm equally baffled by your complaint that I'm "permanently referring to a criterion that leads to [my] own decision." What, in your view, is an administrator's role here? To ignore the criteria and count votes? I'm sorry, but "This is big news, so it should be posted!" isn't an appropriate rationale.
If you're under the impression that I reverse-engineered an excuse to impose my will, you're badly mistaken. This subject area is underrepresented in ITN, and I'd like very much to rectify that. But this isn't a news website, nor is ITN a news ticker. I'd be delighted to restore the blurb, if only the requisite article updates were to occur.
I even attempted to implement alternative wording (reliant on the single major article update), and I was told that pulling the item was preferable (because the aforementioned article update — the only substantial one that we have — focuses on a relatively insignificant element of the event).
I honestly don't know what else you expect me to do, apart from ignoring a fundamental criterion. —David Levy 20:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Levy, I am still unsure about what you want. This isn't some dramatic news development that occurred on top of complicated political back-story - it's a story about 3 men who have been awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine. Just how much more can we say about it? Deterence Talk 21:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I haven't felt strongly about this item at all, but looking through the discussion, the gist of what's happening seems to be that you [David] pulled this because of an insufficient update, others told you that it's been updated all it can be, and you replied, "It's entirely possible that no major article updates are called for. In such a case, no ITN item is called for either." Your second sentence is quite problematic because this, of course, is a pre-approved item; in other words, an ITN item is absolutely called for by a longstanding, already-established consensus. With this in mind, it kind of seems the article is being held hostage for something of an unimportant reason. It doesn't meet a written, arbitrary rule somewhere? So what? As Thue says, omitting the blurb entirely isn't helping anything, and we need to remember that out main purpose is to showcase articles—something that's not being done at the moment. Swarm 03:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section's main purpose is to showcase articles substantially updated to reflect recent/current events. "Updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient." This isn't an arbitrary rule; it's one that ensures that the section accomplishes something other than reporting news. Readers clicking through to the bold-linked articles expect to find a significant amount of additional information about the event. If no such prose exists, we've failed them; we've reported a news headline and wasted their time by sending them to an encyclopedia article that merely regurgitates it.
According to Hydrox, "there is a wealth of material available to update the articles with, and chances are those will be incorporated soon." As noted above, I'd be delighted to restore the item at that point.
If Hydrox is mistaken (and no such updates are called for), what is the justification for an ITN item? I see nothing other than a desire to report the news, which simply isn't our role.
Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items is a list of recurring events known to satisfy the "importance" criterion. As explicitly noted on the page, "the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately." We routinely omit WP:ITN/R items lacking such updates. I believe that some have never actually appeared. —David Levy 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this belated point, we're about to discover the winner(s) of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Yet, we still haven't posted this high-profile ITN/R item despite strong consensus to do so. For the love of all that is holy, and per WP:NABOBS, can we just post this already?! Before Christmas arrives?! Deterence Talk 10:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe all required articles atleast mention the nobel prize with ref... so whats the hold up here. Its a nobel prize that is given for someone's achievements. If the achievements itself are not well documented then i can understand but not enough updates for the nobel prize itself doesnt make sense. Updating article with more lines than needed to explain the news doesnt improve article in any way. -- Ashish-g55 12:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, according to our criteria, "updates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient."
ITN's purpose isn't to report news. It's to link to encyclopedia articles substantially updated to reflect recent/current events. No one asserts that these articles should have prose shoehorned in for he purpose of complying with this criterion. As noted above, it's entirely possible that such updates (and therefore such an ITN item) aren't called for this time around. The argument "There's nothing left to add to the articles, so let's just report the news already!" ignores the section's reason for being. Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. —David Levy 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I see no such consensus. Consensus isn't gauged by counting votes. The rationale "This is big news, so let's post it!" is not "strong." —David Levy 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then nobel prize (or most other awards...) should not be ITNR since they will never produce enough updates to article. its an award given for an achievement... it wont ever produce enough updates to article to satisfy above requirement. Since we should be featuring the achievement, IAR can easily be invoked here. Reading all the comments above the consensus is to post. I'm sorry but you seem to be the only one against it. Stuff like awards, deaths, sports wins etc. will always produce little updates. Have them removed from ITNR if you feel this should not go up. -- Ashish-g55 14:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There clearly is consensus that this event satisfies the "importance criterion." That's why it's listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items. Again, as explicitly stated on that page, "the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately." We routinely omit WP:ITN/R items lacking such updates.
In the Nobel Prize in Chemistry section, Tone notes that we could add reactions from colleagues. (This is how we typically satisfy the update requirement when notable persons die.) FormerIP and Masem point out that an article also can be updated to include background information on the work for which the Nobel Prize was awarded.
I see no reason to invoke IAR. Given the fact that reporting news is the purpose of neither Wikipedia nor ITN, a desire to do so isn't a strong rationale. If it were, the exception would swallow the rule; we'd essentially abandon the update requirement and automatically post every major news story (thereby transforming the section into a news ticker). —David Levy 15:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention to ignore the update requirement but news about a person recieving nobel prize should not require substantial updates. If the article properly mentions the achievement and achievement itself is properly documented then that should be enough. Putting random quotes from colleagues IMHO does not improve article rather its forcibly put there in order to achieve this ITN requirement. Goal should always be to improve article... thats why i said IAR can be invoked here. -- Ashish-g55 15:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you "have no intention to ignore the update requirement," but that's precisely the rule that you wish to ignore. I'm as strong a supporter of IAR as anyone, but a key element is that it should be applied when doing so serves to improve or maintain Wikipedia. I don't see how reporting news (not Wikipedia's or ITN's purpose) accomplishes that.
I disagree that comments from notable colleagues fail to improve an article. The addition of background information on the work for which the Nobel Prize was awarded is even better.
But if we assume that no major update is called for, that also means that no ITN item is called for. The section is intended to link to encyclopedia articles created or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events, not to "feature achievements."
Please note that I posted the item about Dan Shechtman's receipt of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. His article has been substantially updated to reflect this event. —David Levy 15:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at the history of all 3 bolded articles and see large amount of updates that were made due to this nobel prize. You have simply ignored all those and are only looking for updates that mention or are directly about the nobel prize. By featuring achievement i meant featuring their work. And their work is what was updated. Updates dont need to be expansion of article they can be improvement also -- Ashish-g55 16:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The updates must pertain to the recent/current event. (General article expansion is DYK's area.)
The Bruce A. Beutler and Jules A. Hoffmann articles now do contain reasonably detailed explanations of the work leading to the Nobel prize award, so the update criterion has been met. (I was about to repost the item, but Tone beat me to it.) —David Levy 16:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, Steinman's article now has an extensive update and although the other two are not updated to the same level, ITN requires one updated article. So back up it goes. To comply with the guidelines, I'll bold just the one article that has the most update, whatever... --Tone 16:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Bruce A. Beutler and Jules A. Hoffmann articles now contain reasonably detailed explanations of the work leading to the Nobel prize award, so the update criterion has been met for all three articles. (I was about to repost the item, but you beat me to it. I've bolded the other two links.) —David Levy 16:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thankyou -- Ashish-g55 17:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Record arctic ozone depletion

Article: Ozone depletion#Arctic ozone hole (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Researchers announce record ozone depletion over the Arctic occurred during the winter of 2010–2011. (Post)
News source(s): BBC. Nature
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Study published by Nature says that last winter saw record depletion of ozone above Arctic, with a loss of up to 80% of ozone in atmosphere, enough to create a hole similar to the antarctic one. --C628 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could someone with knowledge on this subject please put this development into a context that we can better understand? TIA Deterence Talk 04:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Antarctic ozone hole was the thing that first sparked what's currently (in my opinion) the under-studied phenomenon of ozone loss - after its discovery in the mid-80's, the scientific community jumped to its feet to figure out how to stave off ozone depletion. However, the Antarctic hole has traditionally stolen the limelight - the Arctic, up until now, has not seen disruption even close to that of the opposite pole, as the polar stratospheric clouds that catalyze ozone depletion form far more easily in the colder Antarctic climate. For the Arctic ozone hole to be this big means that the Arctic is getting colder, fast. And, if the Arctic's getting colder, that means the world's climate is changing. So, in brief: bigger ozone holes in the Arctic equals global warming.
    Now, that's all fun and interesting from a scientific perspective, but whether or not ITN's contributors will like the story is another matter. Just thought I'd give some context.
    (disclaimer: yes, I know that this description is quite condensed and not meant to be an overview of the study of ozone by any means - particularly, PSC relation to ozone depletion is only lightly researched[71], there are other factors like chlorofluorocarbons and similar halocarbons, etc. Again, this is only a quick overview for context.) m.o.p 07:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All we can really say is that it was an exceptionally cold winter in the Arctic stratosphere, the coldest ever in 30 years of observations. That led to unprecedented Arctic ozone depletion because the ozone depleting processes are temperature sensitive. However, it is too early to say whether this is climate change or merely a natural fluctuation in the weather. This last winter was the coldest ever, but in the last ten years we've also had 4 of the 6 warmest winters ever. Overall, it is too early to discern if there is any trend, and the Nature paper doesn't even mention "global warming" or "climate change". Dragons flight (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The blurb doesn't mention climate change or similar either - we don't need to argue about that (I think) to make a call on whether this fits the ITN requirements. The hole in the ozone is presumably notable, and in the news, mild support EdwardLane (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ozone studies very rarely discuss trends - they focus on disruptive effects (see here), but this article's closing paragraph pretty clearly states a possible correlation. Ozone depletion/regeneration and global warming are said to (possibly) be linked to global warming by multiple sources.
    Personally, I think putting global warming in blurbs is fun. It brings out the debaters and sensationalists. Makes for great news. All we have to say is "possibly linked to global warming". Or we could be boring and not mention that part. :P m.o.p 16:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why must we go there? The alarming risk here is excess radiation exposure affecting human health. See Biological effects. --Natural RX 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, ozone holes are a notable subject, and this is an interesting record. Some people might be directly affected due to UV radiation. Thue | talk 12:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point - a hole in the Antarctic doesn't really harm anyone directly, as that region is unpopulated. A hole in the Arctic has the potential to harm Greenland, Russia and Norway (and is already thought to have done so). Link. m.o.p 16:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - We have m.o.p saying this equals global warming, Dragon's flight saying that that's not necessarily the case, and EdwardLane saying it doesn't matter either way. I'm going to have to go with EdwardLane and presume that this is significant even without a link to global warming. Swarm 17:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is significant in that it is new in the arctic, and as mentioned, is/could harm us and other biological life. --Natural RX 18:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The item is significant enough, in my opinion, and we have a good update and an informative article. We do not, I think, need to mention in the blurb the possible causes or consequences of Arctic ozone depletion. Doing so at this time would, if I'm not mistaken, involve speculation and, especially if we suggest a link to global warming, is likely to create controversy. The only modification I think we ought to consider is replacing: "Researchers announce" with the more specific "A study in the journal Nature reports". -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I held back on this one but have since noticed additional media reports about the ozone hole. Agree that we don't need to discuss climate change, and that this item notable enough to post. Also agree with Black Falcon on the wording of the blurb. Jusdafax 19:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I was pondering switching the image to this one, but then I realized that most people don't understand false-colour scientific images and would not gain anything from it. m.o.p 05:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also not the ozone hole for last winter. -- tariqabjotu 06:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, we could just say Antarctic ozone hole pictured or something. It's fine without, anyway. m.o.p 12:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

October 2, 2011 (2011-10-02) (Sunday)

October 1

October 1, 2011 (2011-10-01) (Saturday)
Armed conflict and attacks

Law and crime

Politics

Bolivian protests

Article: 2011 Bolivian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bolivian President Evo Morales suspends a highway project in the Amazon basin after protests (Post)
News source(s): on page
Credits:

Article updated

 Lihaas (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the desibel levels too loud like the bolding?
anyways, it was there at the end of the protests...and ive added it further.
And tagging in a soft manner...per comments here as updated.Lihaas (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this were properly updated (and I have to say the fact in the proposed blurb is so buried that I'm not sure the article is so updated), the event occurred on September 29 or September 30 and the oldest event currently on ITN is from October 1. So, there's no place for this. -- tariqabjotu 00:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the size of TFA, there's now room for this on ITN. But I still think the update is insufficient as it covers little of the alleged story (the announcement that the project is suspended). -- tariqabjotu 07:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 700 arrested in Occupy Wall Street protest

Article: Occupy_Wall_Street (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 700 people are arrested in the Occupy_Wall_Street protest in New York City. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
  • Support What started as a relatively trivial event is building into quite a spectacle, (in part because of a few power-crazed retards from the NYPD). Note, the article (and media reports) put the figure at over 700 arrested. Deterence Talk 04:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm starting to think if you can't bother commenting on nominations without making soapbox-like comments, you shouldn't comment at all. I don't know if you're doing it to be funny, but more often than not, your comments spark unneeded side conversations. -- tariqabjotu 06:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess you have no idea what has been happening at the Occupy Wall Street protest. This trivial little non-event wouldn't have even registered in the media spotlight if it wasn't for the behaviour of the NYPD. The police brutality at this event even made it onto the Daily Show and that guy worships the NYPD, lol. Deterence Talk 06:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article with video of the coverage by the Daily Show (click on Continue Reading link for video). There are countless other WP:RSs (goggle) if you don't like this one.
  • "media and public interest in the protest swelled after an NYPD officer pepper-sprayed several protesters last Saturday." (source). Deterence Talk 07:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I follow the news, thank you very much. What I am saying is that the news item could have been supported (or opposed) without resorting to juvenile language like "power-crazed retards from the NYPD" that overtly presents your position on the matter. -- tariqabjotu 07:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't give a damn about those protesters. I'm still not even sure what they're even protesting about. But, I know police brutality by an out of control cop when I see it. That said, you have a point, I could have chosen my words much better and will endeavour to do so in the future. Deterence Talk 07:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How many demonstrators? 5,000? NY is a high profile city no doubt but this appears to be an extremely small minority of people creating a lot of drama. Not notable enough for main page IMO. WikifanBe nice 07:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a pinko-lefty demonstrator of the 60s and 70s, I say without any doubt in my mind that 5,000 demonstrators in a city the size of New York is trivial. Whether the 700 arrests is significant will need to be shown by a better explanation of what the arrests were for. (Trespassing? Disrupting Traffic? Or something more significant.) The issue of police brutality will need clearer facts plus more and better referencing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, Police are thugs--that's quite a POV. To be clear, I have no issue with callingthis policeman a thug, but not police in general, or the NYPD in general.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To put it bluntly, if any Western cops deserve the label "thugs with badges", it's the NYPD (and the LAPD). Those guys are notorious, even down here in New Zealand. That said, I agree that it is inappropriately POV to describe the NYPD as "thugs", notwithstanding the countless WP:RSs illustrating this fact. Deterence Talk 09:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I simply can't find any better description of the pepperspray-video. And the problem is not that there is one bad apple, it is that his actions are being defended by the police department. Thue | talk 20:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 So for clarity, is this nomination based on the arrests or the protests? 700+ arrests is certainly eventful for New York City but mass-arrests typically are not the main element of a proposal. It seems the people arrested were a distance away from the "occupation on wall street" activism. NY Post frames the incident as borderline vandalism. WikifanBe nice 09:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My support is based on all the Wall Street protests up to now. Thue | talk 20:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not!!! HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems this item has enough support to be posted. However, there's a cleanup tag on top of the article - though I am not entirely sure what's the reason for it. When this gets resolved, I am ready to post. --Tone 15:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - 700 arrests is notable, as is the widespread coverage. Because of the political nature of the protests, the article is under dispute, which is not unusual. Suggest posting, tag or no. In my view the tag is unjustified, as the article is sourced and coherent. Jusdafax 18:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. --Tone 18:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Oppose I have to give post-posting oppose to this in the footsteps of WikiFan and others above. This event has received very little RS attention, it still remains a small demonstration, and the article is a mess. The 700 arrestees were promptly released, a fact the article failed to mention until now. Also, I think for the first time, I had to clean up a statement citing Twitter as source from a section directly linked from the Main page. Posting hysteric items based mostly on first-hand accounts is a path I would hope ITN didn't go down. --hydrox (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose to posting. How the hell did this get posted? Half the comments are silly soapboxing, and the other have no clue about what actually happened. Strongly suggest retracting the factually incorrect blurb, and I suggest Deterence stop making intentionally misleading comments to push whatever political agenda he has in mind. This is utterly ridiculous. 128.151.150.17 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another strong oppose - Tiny demonstration by world standards. The arrests seem valid. The releases happened. This is NOT major news. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was this posted? Hardly a consensus and not a lot of reason to post. Like Hilo said, a lot of soapboxing. I'm too lazy to take this to errors. WikifanBe nice 21:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Oppose. 700 is a rather small number of protestors in the United States. By comparison, Troy Davis' funeral had more than a thousand people attending, including family, activists and supporters ([72]). SpencerT♦C 21:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a global encyclopaedia. Surely the comparison must be on a global basis, otherwise we can post the biggest demonstration in any country. And we won't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Items posted in ITN need to be unusual. For example, the routine 1,400 people who die everyday from smoking-related illnesses would not make ITN. However, a suicide bomber in Manhattan would probably be a good candidate. Marcus Qwertyus 00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Support. Honestly, I find this interesting, though not in the same way as some of the POV comments above. These arrests are the largest mass arrest in New York City since the 2004 Republican convention, which counts for something even though the arrests appear quite justified. In addition, it is a piece of a larger news story about Wall Street that has been going on for a while. While Occupy Wall Street is certainly not anywhere near the same scale as the protests of the Arab Spring (which they cite as their inspiration), it is still somewhat unusual for the Western world to have protests this size continue for weeks. I don't see any fundamental problem with putting this in ITN, though arguably the article could be a bit better / clearer. Dragons flight (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-support - 700 arrests is a lot. Swarm 22:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about the 700 breaches of the law, and the 700 subsequent releases. There is little real news here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it equally notable that 700+ people were prepared to be arrested, and receive criminal records, as a consequence of their civil disobedience for the cause they're fighting for (whatever that cause may be)? The vast majority of the civil rights protests in America's South during the 1960s had far fewer arrests than 700, but few (educated) people will deny the notability of their sustained campaign for change through civil disobedience. Deterence Talk 23:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has anybody been convicted? Do you end up with a criminal record for one (hypothetical) disturbing the peace charge in the USA? Wow. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even American police officers cannot arrest people unless they've committed an (alleged) crime. Deterence Talk 23:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Disorderly conduct", which is what most of the participants were cited for, is considered a "violation" which in NY State is a level of offense even below misdemeanor. A person convicted of a "violation" is not considered to have committed a "crime" under the NY definitions and would not be formally considered to have a criminal record. Dragons flight (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Question were there any charges laid? if all or most of those 700 were released then i fail to see the importance here. G20 regularly causes more arrests. It sounds like 700 were detained and then let go. Even if this thing is going to stay on ITN then blurb needs to be updated to reflect that everyone was released within a few hours -- Ashish-g55 23:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Coerced detention, without an arrest for an alleged crime, is also known as kidnapping. Even when it's only for a few hours. Deterence Talk 23:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, NYPD issued over 700 summons and desk appearance tickets, mostly for disorderly conduct. This is alternative process where a person accused of a very minor offense is assigned a specific future time to report to criminal court to be arraigned. But in essence this is the same as charging 700+ people with a minor offense (punishable by no more than 15 days in jail, but usually resolved by a fine). Dragons flight (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The day that an offence carrying a sentence of 15 days locked 24/7 in a cell of concrete and steel doesn't count as a crime is the day we need to re-examine our definition of "crime". Deterence Talk 00:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the protests are getting major coverage. We've posted protest stories from around the world, so why is this garnering so much post-posting opposition? Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: For following reasons:
    • (1) Non-Event:This is pretty much a non-event compared to protests ongoing throughout the world. 700 people merely detained and then released ... seriously? To post this while we have a strike in its 20th day in Andhra Pradesh with the number of state government employees alone crossing 7,00,000... I am not trying to ask why is X posted when Y is not posted. What I am saying is that a protest of this scale is just routine compared to stuff going on elsewhere in the world.
    • (2) No Consensus: Another reason why this should not have been posted is, from what I can see of the discussion, there was no consensus at the time of posting. This is not a vote count. Several of the reasons raised by HiLo have not been addressed. Most of the discussion is just rants by Deterence about police brutality and with no bearing on the notability of the event.
    • (3) Quality Tag: The article has a quality tag. If the news was earth shattering or if there was unanimous support, we could overlook it. Neither of these exist in this case.
Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have made some very serious and so far totally unsubstantiated allegations of police brutality here. You would have to be the last person here with any entitlement to complain about personal attacks. In fact, your unsupported allegations, if true, are perhaps the only claim to fame this item has at all. It should be removed from ITN right away and you need to stop abusing the NYPD without proper evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made no personal attacks against any Wikipedia editors. Yesterday, I commented on police brutality by the NYPD, and provided linked WP:RSs, including VIDEO (as if there wasn't already a mountain of reliable sources about that issue on the internet and videos on youtube). I haven't mentioned police brutality today. Indeed, I've done little more than make a few comments about the nature of protesting through civil disobedience and the definition of "crime". You may disagree with my commentary but you do not have the right to accuse me of misrepresenting the story or of acting in bad faith. Deterence Talk 02:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude, Deterence ... I have no issues against you, but I have issues with your comments. So far, the points raised by you mostly relate to police brutality and whether they were justified in doing what they did and are totally unconnected with establishing notability, and are therefore of no constructive value for this discussion. We are not here to pass judgement on the police actions but to decide whether the item is notable enough. Here, we have a pepper-spray on a protestor resisting arrest ... even if a policemen actually whisked an innocent bystander away and electrocuted his balls all through the weekend, while that would most certainly be police brutality, it would still not be notable enough on an international scale. So even if there has been police brutality (which I cant really see in this case), that has no bearing on the notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially agreed with Chocolate Horlicks. Deterence, for your own sake, you need to (i) stop soapboxing and making comments that have no relevance to this nomination, (ii) admit your wrongdoing. Given the precedence that exists in this project, I am very surprised that you haven't been topic banned yet. Regard that as good luck and please stop harassing users who are trying to keep the discussion focused. JimSukwutput 05:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs to be pulled immediately. The article is a mess and reeks of POV. The protest isn't even being mentioned by the major news networks, and when they were mentioning it there was none of this "police brutality" nonsense. I have previously commented above in this thread for full disclosure. N419BH 04:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs to be pulled immediately. Reasons enumerated by Choc are sound and logical. They have yet to be challenged. The blurb has nothing to do with police brutality or the justness of 700 detentions/arrests. It is simply about 700 arrests at a protest in NY. A very small protest that has generated SOME news, but not on a level worthy of ITN. Also, I don't understand why this event gets to the photo privilege for the main page. Anwar Awlaki should be featured, not a bridge. Who is responsible for this? WikifanBe nice 07:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly like this article to be kept, not simply because I'm the nominator. At the time of posting, there was 8-2 support for this nomination (yes it's not a vote, yadda yadda yadda), and while there's a some inappropriate SOAPBOXing going on here plenty of the supports were well reasoned. When it was nominated, this was the top story at the BBC website. That doesn't qualify it for automatic posting but to say it's not getting coverage its a bit much. Calling a mass arrest of 700 people a 'non-event' seems bizarre, unless someone can show that it's a regular occurrence (I know they were. released but they still went to jail as far as I read; Rikers Island isn't exactly a nice place to spend your day). While the main notability is the arrests, it's also significant that the protests, while not massive, have sprung up in several other US cities. All that said, there is now an orange NPOV tag in the article, which if can't be dealt with probably means this should be pulled. I've read the article and while it's not the best WP ever produced it seems to cover different points of view. Is the tag really necessary?--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I must have got that wrong ... I'll concede that at the time of posting, the discussion was largely in support, but since then we've had a lot of oppositions. As regards the protest - I still feel it pales in comparison to the protests going on in Andhra Pradesh (for the new state of Telengana), Bolivia (against the Highway), Greece (against austerity measures), etc. The arrests appear to be of the nature of preventive detention since they were released without prosecution. If this leads to significant further protests throughout USA, then we could re-look at this. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were also a lot of 'post supports', so I don't believe that consensus has changed. And I fail to understand how 700 arrests at one time isn't a notable event, even if they were released. Does this happen regularly?--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the article. But it looks like its in too much of a mess. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Oppose. May 2, 1977: 1,414 protesters were arrested at Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant; 1 September 2004: Riot police arrest 900 at Republican rally; just yesterday, in Rawalpindi hundreds of protesters took to Peshawar Road and burned tires and over 2000 agitators have been booked. 700 is no big deal. Take this off ITN. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3,000 people from Al-Rastan, Syria have been arrested over the last three days for demaning the most basic human rights. Unlike these 700 Americans, very few lucky ones will be "subsequently released." Many more will be facing inhumane torture such as electric shocks, hanging by meat hooks, beatings and anal mutilation (all recently reported practices from Syrian prisons). And this stuff goes on around the world weekly, daily. Puts this case of American "police brutality" to some perspective, doesn't it? --hydrox (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Other stuff exists" comes immediately to mind. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Support. What's the damned hurry to pull this? It certainly HAS gotten wide-spread international coverage -- I personally saw footage on commuter-train videoscreen news update the other day -- and it was for a time the top story on the BBC World News site. How do i know the latter? Well, I have reliable source for that: The New Yorker. So the "it's not getting real coverage!" excuse doesn't hold water. --Calton | Talk 13:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Oppose for reasons others have written here. It pales in comparison to other international arrests, the protests themselves are small and insignificant. They seem to be playing very little role in the actual politics of the United States. Cjs2111 (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] AFL Grand Final / NRL Grand Final

Article: 2011 AFL Grand Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Australian rules football, Geelong defeat Collingwood to win the 2011 AFL Grand Final (Post)
News source(s): See article
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: ITN/R and sufficiently updated (16 refs and 11 kB of prose), so I'm assuming this will be uncontroversial. Jenks24 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tariq, will do so; I'm not sure why I was using all caps; I have some vague memory that it was done earlier, probably wrong.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object if we did what we did last year and tack the NRL Grand Final onto the end of the blurb (no bold link?). It is also ITN/R. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't paying attention last year. If it's ITN/R there's obviously no problem posting the NRL Grand Final, but I don't understand your proposal. Why not the usual separate nomination? The sports are totally unrelated. Yes, both events happened in Australia, but that's about the only thing they have in common. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As HiLo48 has noted, they're different sports. I cannot imagine that the followers of those two sports will not appreciate them being merged like that. Deterence Talk 09:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's to avoid two equally popular (and therefore post-worthy) Australian sporting items clogging up ITN. It worked well last year: two short blurbs in one separated by a semi-colon. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 NRL Grand Final should definitely go up – it's ITN/R and seems to be updated enough. That said, I remember this from last year and, personally, I disliked the combination of the two – to my mind, it gave the impression the two events were somehow related. I don't think it would kill ITN to have two separate Australian sports blurbs, but perhaps that's just me. Jenks24 (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok done. Thanks for the comments, all. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final month BoSox collapse (baseball)

Eternally cursed Boston baseball team set 137 year record for worse September collapse, a 9 game lead blown at the end of the regular season. (to do this they needed to lose at a 74.1% rate (20 of 27) plus for the competition to start winning faster)

This is probably not gonna make it either.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Team fails to make quarter finals of (essentially) domestic tournament": oppose Kevin McE (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Atlanta Braves basically did the same thing, though not entirely as dramatically. Much as I feel sorry for Red Sox fans, they really ought to be used to it by now. Kevin McE has it right, though he put it a lot more bluntly than I would have. NW (Talk) 14:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is a significant baseball news story (and one I like personally). But overall, there are countless records in sports that routinely get broken, we obviously can't post them all, and I don't really think this stands out enough to post. Swarm 16:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There needs to be something special for this kind of story if it is to break out of sports stat trivia and into the major news. I don't see that here. I don't follow baseball but the "record" does not seem notable. What happened 137 years ago anyway? Was it beaten or was the league founded or something like that? Crispmuncher (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose. Not that big of a deal. It may have broken some obscure record of a September collapse, but it's hardly significant. If the Red Sox had made the playoffs and then got blown out in their first series it wouldn't have raised any eyebrows.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this obviously doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making the main page. So why do people still feel the need to oppose it? Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the fifth editor to voice an 'oppose' vote here, I thought of that myself actually--was another oppose vote actually necessary? I suppose that part of the 'snowball's chance' logic here is that there's so much opposition, it's clear it won't be posted, but if people don't voice their opposition, then the SNOWBALL argument can't apply. I think as long as posts are civil and well-reasoned, there's nothing wrong with making the consensus crystal clear.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on opposes have their place: sometimes the most flawed logic is used here. Harry Potter was nominated three time before it was posted: the first two nominations clearly where not going to go anywhere. The third was more finely balanced but the posting admin argued that people who had not opposed in the first instance were in some way acting in bad faith.[73]
The logic is utterly ridiculous of course, but if that is how a posting decision may be made it is necessary to state your position at the outset, even if it does become a pile-on, lest it is not counted when it actually matters. Don't blame me for that - take it up with Tariq. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Crispmuncher , your link is to the edit page for this section. Mistake? Deterence Talk 22:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly. Link above now fixed. ;-) Crispmuncher (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Salmaan Taseer killer sentenced to death

Articles: Salmaan Taseer (talk · history · tag) and Capital punishment in Pakistan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The murderer of Pakistani politician Salmaan Taseer is sentenced to death followign a trial in Rawalpindi. (Post)
News source(s): [74]
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Article needs some work, but the news reports are there to base that on. One of two politicians to be murdered in Pakistan this year because of their opposition to the country's blasphemy laws. --FormerIP (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If staying alive for 9 years after being sentenced to death makes the sentence a mere gimmick then most of the death sentences handed out in the USA are gimmicks - most of them sit on death row for considerably longer than 9 years (which is probably a good thing, given the appallingly high rate with which American courts sentence innocent men to death). Deterence Talk 21:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's likely to be as newsworthy by then. --FormerIP (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary it will likely be more newsworthy as likely half of Pakistan will be burnt down if the execution happens.[75]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOAPBOX. - Mar4d (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not WP:SOAPBOX to state the obvious in a talk page. Deterence Talk 02:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that "half" of Pakistan will "likely" be burnt down is unneeded, opinionative soapboxing. Mar4d (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's hyperbole. Deterence Talk 03:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
happy to correct myself. 1/4th of Pakistan will burn down if Qadri is hanged ;-)--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deterence, thanks for the attempt at clarifying, but I have seen a lot of this user's immature anti-Pakistan trolling here on Wikipedia (in different places) that I think I am capable of distinguishing between hyperbole and soapboxing. Mar4d (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Mar4d And I have seen a lot of your pro pakistan POV pushing and all of us know who tries to project the terrorist infested failed state of pakistan in a crazily positive light on wikipedia ;-)--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, the point he was trying to make (I guess) was that there is a strong likelihood that the actual execution will be much delayed and the actual execution (if and when it happens) would be notable enough for posting as there would most likely be significant public backlash in Pakistan given that he is viewed by several as a hero. Sadly, things aren't going well on this side of the border as well. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/October_2011&oldid=1091633961"